[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25570-26205]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X02-210503]



MTC-00012283

From: Edward Kirk Middleton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Kirk Middleton
8553 Fairforest Rd.
Spartanburg, SC 29303
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 Kirk Middleton



MTC-00012284

From: Kenneth Pelkey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Pelkey
707 Oceanside Blvd. Suite C
Oceanside, CA 92054
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 J. Pelkey



MTC-00012285

From: George Godwin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Godwin
1212 Summit St
Dothan, Al 36301
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,
    Mr. & Mrs. George Godwin



MTC-00012286

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:41pm
Subject: Dept of Justice on Microsoft Litigation
    It is about time that we finally settle this unfair lawsuit 
against Microsoft filed by rival companies of Microsoft. Most of 
these supposedly concerned companies are actually interested only in 
getting more money for themselves and do not necessarily have the 
public welfare in mind. Given the same position that Microsoft had 
in the computer field who knows what they would have done. ``He who 
is without sin let him cast the first stone.'' Let us settle this 
case finally and allow good, viable companies like Microsoft to go 
on with their projects. Let us stop the government from spending too 
much money in useless litigation and finalize this once and for all. 
Most companies especially, technology companies are already 
suffering from this great economic slowdown and adding to this is 
such unsure and wastefull litigation that has dragged on for so 
long. Lethis case be settled now. Microsoft is agreeing to the 
settlement conditions, what more do these companies want?
CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012287

From: Edward D'Ovidio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward D'Ovidio
835 Hermitage Ridge
Hermitage, TN 37076
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 D'Ovidio



MTC-00012288

From: Wayne Noll
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wayne Noll
2021 Cameo Vista Dr.
West Covina, Ca 91791
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 25571]]

courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Noll



MTC-00012289

From: George Roy, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Roy, Jr.
626 U.S. Rt. #1
Scarborough, ME 04074
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 E. Roy, Jr.



MTC-00012290

From: W R Jackson, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W R Jackson, Jr.
55 Burbank Lane
Yarmouth, ME 04096
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,
    W R Jackson Jr



MTC-00012291

From: Michael Bosworth
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Bosworth
10212 Altavista Ave. Apt. 103
Tampa, FL 33647
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 Bosworth



MTC-00012292

From: Marjorie Kasten
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Kasten
360 Grandview Ave
Bangor, ME 04401-3226
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,
    Marjorie Kasten



MTC-012293

From: Susan Sabol
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Sabol
9047 Blackhawk Lane
Indianapolis, IN 46234
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 25572]]

products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation. Competition means creating better goods and offering 
superior services to consumers. With government out of the business 
of stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick 
the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-
tech 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 Sabol



MTC-00012294

From: Horst Ehrhardt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Horst Ehrhardt
143 Walden Ridge Dr.
Crossville, TN 38558
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,
    Horst Ehrhardt



MTC-00012295

From: Patricia Isaak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Isaak
4201 Bonita Road, Apt. 242
Bonita, CA 91902
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 A. Isaak



MTC-00012296

From: Michael Freeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael 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,
    Michael Freeman



MTC-00012297

From: Richard Hathaway
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Hathaway
2040 Duck Lake Rd.
Whitehall, MI 49461
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 G. Hathaway



MTC-00012298

From: Ludmila Foster
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ludmila Foster
307 Yopakum Pkwy, Apt.1214
Alexandria, VA 22304
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 25573]]

losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, 
more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share 
my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ludmila A. Foster



MTC-00012299

From: Cosmo Stallone
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cosmo Stallone
804 Cooks Brook Road
Roscoe, NY 12776-7102
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,
    Cosmo Stallone



MTC-00012300

From: Susan Dzienius
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Dzienius
10015 Paseo Montril
San Diego, CA 92129-3916
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 Dzienius



MTC-00012301

From: Dotti Hernandez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dotti Hernandez
2813 Thornton Ct. #3
Modesto, CA 95350-2036
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,
    Dotti Hernandez



MTC-00012302

From: Frank Reagor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Reagor
406 Webb Road West
Bell Buckle, TN 37020-4045
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,
    R. Frank Reagor



MTC-00012303

From: Douglas Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Martin
5409 Lemhi Court
North Las Vegas, NV 89031-0517
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,
    Douglas J. Martin



MTC-00012304

From: William Staskel

[[Page 25574]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Staskel
14 First Avenue
Central Islip, NY 11722-3010
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 J. Staskel



MTC-00012305

From: Nathan M. Linowitz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nathan M. Linowitz
217 East Hanover St
Trenton, NJ 08608
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 M. Linowitz



MTC-00012306

From: franklin neabitt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
franklin neabitt
506 rainbow blvd
lady lake, fl 32159-6415
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,
    franklin nesbitt



MTC-00012307

From: Arlen Gastineau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arlen Gastineau
6423 Edge-o-Grove Circle
Orlando, FL 32819
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,
    Arlen Gastineau



MTC-00012308

From: John Brady, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Brady, Sr.
1208 Brampton Pl.
Heathrow, Fl 32746-5027
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.
    Yours truly,
    John X. Brady, Sr.



MTC-00012309

From: Maxie M. Kennedy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maxie M. Kennedy
414 Aaron Johnson Ln
Kinston, NC 28504-7735
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division

[[Page 25575]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Maxie M Kennedy



MTC-00012310

From: Joshua Harmon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joshua Harmon
104B Biltmore Drive
Greenville, SC 29601-4330
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,
    Josh Harmon



MTC-00012311

From: Margaret Alkinc
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Alkinc
177 West Newell Avenue
Rutherford, NJ 07070
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,
    Margaret Alkinc



MTC-00012312

From: David Hougen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Hougen
19502 Encino Spur St.
San Antonio, Tx 78259-2305
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 A Hougen



MTC-00012313

From: Charles Cooper
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Cooper
7817 South State Route 555
Chesterhill, OH 43728
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 A Cooper



MTC-00012314

From: Gerald Zellar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Zellar
81341 420th Ave
Lakefield , MN 56150
January 15, 2002

[[Page 25576]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Zellar



MTC-00012315

From: Rachel Wade
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rachel Wade
197 Lazy Creek Dr
Rustburg, VA 24588
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,
    Rachel Wade



MTC-00012316

From: Charlton Todd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlton Todd
919 Briarcliff Lane
Blackshear, GA 31516
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,
    Charlton D. Todd



MTC-00012317

From: Gina Jackson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gina Jackson
1630 Sawyer Avenue
West Covina, CA 91790
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,
    Gina M. Jackson



MTC-00012318

From: Lewis Van Horn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lewis Van Horn
11 Sunset Drive
Howell, NJ 07731-2766
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,
    Lewis O. Van Horn



MTC-00012319

From: Alex Vert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alex Vert
1104 Minneapolis St.

[[Page 25577]]

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783-3124
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,
    Alex R. Vert



MTC-00012320

From: Robert Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I ask that you seek to dismiss the case against Microsoft and 
allow them to
    I ask that you seek to dismiss the case against Microsoft and 
allow them to continue to create and innovate in a free market 
enviornment. If there were TRUE competition, i.e. GOOD alternative 
software, people would be lining up to use it and BUY it. However, 
that is not the case, therefore the providers of inferior products 
have chosen to spend their money on attorneys rather that research 
and development. Let us put this lawsuit behind us so that Microsoft 
can get on with the business of doing business and not protecting 
themselves from frivolous lawsuits.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Adams
    St. Louis, MO



MTC-00012321

From: Randall Gosh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randall Gosh
816 Williams Avenue
South Milwaukee, WI 53172-3860
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,
    Randall Gosh



MTC-00012322

From: Paul Toland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Toland
484 Lake Park Avenue, #145
Oakland, Ca 94610-2730
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,
    Paul R Toland



MTC-00012323

From: Myrtice Walker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Myrtice Walker
1064 Horseshoe Rd
Augusta, GA 30906
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,
    Myrtice J. Walker



MTC-00012324

From: Raymond Best
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Best
2364 W. Charteroak Dr.
Prescott, AZ 86305
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 25578]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Best



MTC-00012325

From: Lonnie Wendling
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lonnie Wendling
1614 Petri Place
San Jose, CA 95118
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,
    Lonnie Wendling



MTC-00012326

From: Jeffrey Mathews
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffrey Mathews
10654 W 200 South
Westville, IN 46391-9639
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,
    Jeffrey J Mathews



MTC-00012327

From: Bernt Martinson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernt Martinson
1413 Cummings Ave
Eau Claire, wi 54701
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,
    Bernt P. Martinson



MTC-00012328

From: Phyllis L Sherkus
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phyllis L Sherkus
2502 York Court
Dunkirk, MD 20754
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,
    Phyllis L Sherkus



MTC-00012329

From: Richard Nigro
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Nigro
2591 Rocky Springs Drive
Marietta, GA 30062-4477
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 25579]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
ndustry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Richard M. Nigro



MTC-00012330

From: Sheryl Vanderwalker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sheryl Vanderwalker
P.O. Box 142
Enumclaw, wa 98022
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,
    Sheryl A. Vanderwalker



MTC-00012331

From: Florence Stoltzfus
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Florence Stoltzfus
907 Surry Dr
Shelby, NC 28152
Januaryy 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,
    Florence Jean Stoltzfus



MTC-00012332

From: Charles White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles White
1300 Miller Place Drive
Bryant, AR 72022
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 L. White



MTC-00012333

From: Kurt Bonifay, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kurt Bonifay, Sr.
8113 Monticello Dr
Pensacola, Fl 32514
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,
    Kurt E. Bonifay Sr.



MTC-00012334

From: Kathryn Rodriguez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Rodriguez
4841 Carol Drive
Troy, MI 48098-5707
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 25580]]

up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Rodriguez



MTC-00012335

From: Manfred Kremkus
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Manfred Kremkus
P.O. Box 1304
San Marcos, TX 78667-1304
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,
    Manfred Kremkus



MTC-00012336

From: Susan Reese
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Reese
2000 Miller Island Road W.
Klamath Falls, OR 97603
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 Reese



MTC-00012337

From: Brian Connett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Connett
9542 Swinton Avenue
North Hills, CA 91343-1926
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,
    Brian I. Connett



MTC-00012338

From: Andrew Guerrasio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Guerrasio
102 Southaven Ave
Medford, NY 11763
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,
    Andrew Guerrasio



MTC-00012339

From: Nancy Z. Mayer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Z. Mayer
RR3 Box 203
Killeen, TX 76549-0311
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 25581]]

    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Z. Mayer



MTC-00012340

From: Frank K Duerst
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank K Duerst
17200 WQ Bell Rd #225
Surprise, Az 85374
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 K Duerst



MTC-00012341

From: Janet Staskel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Staskel
14 First Avenue
Central Islip, NY 11722-3010
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 Staskel



MTC-00012342

From: Thomas Meeker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Meeker
201 Rio Vista Drive
Cibolo, TX 78108-4205
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 Meeker



MTC-00012343

From: Anne N. McClure
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anne N. McClure
44141 Foxy Lane
Ahwahnee, Ca 93601
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,
    Anne N. McClure



MTC-00012344

From: Timothy B. Baker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy B. Baker
8n Wonderwood Drive
Greenville, SC 29615-1231
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 25582]]

courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Timohty B. Baker



MTC-00012345

From: Sydney Corbett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sydney Corbett
231 SE 45th Terrace
Ocala, Fl 34471-3224
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 let Microsoft get back to the business of 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. With 
the economy the way it is now, we should be encouraging businesses, 
not slapping them down! 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,
    Sydney B. Corbett



MTC-00012346

From: Paul Christoffersen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Christoffersen
23728 RD 15 3/4
Chowchilla, CA 93610
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,
    Paul Christoffersen



MTC-00012347

From: Rosalind Berg
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosalind Berg
1847 2335 Road Box 57
Cedaredge, CO 81413
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,
    Rosalind R. Berg



MTC-00012348

From: James D. Austraw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James D. Austraw
320 East 170 South
Ivins, UT 84738
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 D. Austraw



MTC-00012349

From: Barbara C. Pink
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara C. Pink
4080 Orchard Road
The Dalles, OR 97058
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 25583]]

wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 H. & Barbara C. Pink



MTC-00012350

From: Sarah Morales
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sarah Morales
3005 A Portertown Road
Greenville, NC 27858
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,
    Sarah Morales



MTC-00012351

From: Gladys Joyce Melton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gladys Joyce Melton
6310-11 Glacier Hwy
Juneau, AK 99801
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 Melton



MTC-00012352

From: Mark Sheppard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Sheppard
633 Elise Drive
Redlands, CA 92374-2134
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,
    Mark Sheppard



MTC-00012353

From: Charles Hoffman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Hoffman
4939 Windsor Gate Court
Morganton,, NC 28655
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 B. Hoffman



MTC-00012354

From: Rose Mary Vaughan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rose Mary Vaughan
5720 Beaumont Place
El Paso, TX 79912
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 25584]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rose Mary Vaughan



MTC-00012355

From: Gregory Morneau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Morneau
8749 Kilbirnie Terrace
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
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,
    Gregory Morneau



MTC-00012356

From: Joan Gillett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joan Gillett
1911 Wealthy Street S. E.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506
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,
    Joan F. Gillett



MTC-00012357

From: Richard S. Marsh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard S. Marsh
4122 Janet Drive
Dorr, MI 49323
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 S. Marsh



MTC-00012358

From: Matthew Terhune
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Matthew 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 industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Terhune



MTC-00012359

From: Charles E. Layne
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles E. Layne
615 Revere Ave
Ft Walton Bch, Fl 32547
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division

[[Page 25585]]

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Layne



MTC-00012360

From: Anthony Mangan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Mangan
155 Quail Hollow Drive
San Jose, Ca 95128-4544
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 Mangan



MTC-00012361

From: Eleanor Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eleanor Smith
6042 Cartagena St.
Houston, Tx 77035-4116
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,
    Eleanor B. Smith



MTC-00012362

From: Joe Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Thompson
45438 St Georges Ave P O Box 40
Piney Point, MD 20674
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 Thompson



MTC-00012363

From: Irene DeMpss
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irene DeMpss
3320 Parksie Drive
San Bernardino, Ca 92404-2408
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,
    Irene DeMpss



MTC-00012364

From: Evelyn Aseltine
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evelyn Aseltine
3111 Platt Place South
Ypsilanti, MI 48197-6644
January 15, 2002

[[Page 25586]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Evelyn G. Aseltine



MTC-00012365

From: Russ Christianson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russ Christianson
P.O. Box 243
Lake Mills, WI 53551-0243
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,
    Russ Christianson



MTC-00012366

From: Elizabeth Conner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Conner
8502 E Chapman Avenue PMB 374
Orange, CA 92869
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,
    Elizabeth D. Conner



MTC-00012367

From: James Schaer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Schaer
P.O.Box 744;1570 Maple Ave.
North Bend, Or 97459
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 M. (Mike) Schaer



MTC-00012368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice:
    I am urging you to settle the Microsoft antitrust case. The 
provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all 
parties involved and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals 
ruling. This settlement is good for consumers and for the American 
economy. We need to move on. This settlement is indeed in the public 
interest and I, as a consumer, believe it is critical that that we 
move beyond this litigation. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie Carlson
    3646 Lovejoy Court N.E.
    Olympia, WA 98506



MTC-00012369

From: John & Jean anne Morrow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John & Jean anne Morrow
1998 Prescott Lakes Parkway
Prescott, AZ 86301
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 25587]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 & Jean Anne Morrow



MTC-00012370

From: Carroll Neblett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to express my support for the acceptance and finalization 
of the Microsoft Anti-trust settlement, and an end to the 
litigation.
    I am only a consumer, but I have been an active buyer and user 
of personal computers and computer software for more than 10 years. 
I believe that Microsoft has been instrumental in developing 
software products that have benefited consumers, business and the 
U.S economy.
    While I cannot speak to any non-competitive improprieties that 
Microsoft may have committed, I cannot imagine that any more rapid 
or beneficial development of the capabilities of personal computers 
could have occurred under any circumstances, no matter how 
competitive. I don't believe that any more rapid or aggressive 
availability of computer technology could have been assimilated by 
the pubic and business, under any circumstances.
    I believe it is time finalize the Settlement and put the 
Microsoft Anti-trust Case behind us. I think to do otherwise and 
continue to let the case drag on will hurt consumers, business, and 
potentially the U.S. economy and its competitive position in the 
World economy relative to technology leadership.
    I will appreciate your consideration of my opinion.
    Carroll Neblett
    11520 Drysdale Drive
    Richmond, VA 23236



MTC-00012371

From: William A.Pauwels, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against Microsoft should be dropped. Microsoft has made 
GREAT contributions to the well-being of mankind and to its 
institutions.
    The Justice Dept.'s persecution of SUCCESSFUL American companies 
because their competitors don't like them and/or can't measure-up in 
the marketplace, is ridiculous.
    If the Justice Dept. is looking for something to champion, why 
not go after the thousands of FOREIGN companies doing business in 
the USA while violating American Antitrust Laws.
    Sincerely,
    William A. Pauwels, Sr.
    1-15-02



MTC-00012372

From: Mark Scherer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Scherer
P.O. Box 9720
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
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. Focus your attention on the 
abuses of the airline and oil industry just to name a few.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Scherer



MTC-00012373

From: C. Warren & Marlene Stelly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Warren & Marlene Stelly
210 Creekwood Drive
Lafayette, LA 70503
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, although it wasn't 
quite as anti-business as OBL. It is high time for this trial, and 
the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will 
indeed see competition in the marketplace, rather than the 
courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 W. Stelly



MTC-00012374

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am completely in favor of settling the Microsoft case now! 
Lela Omta



MTC-00012375

From: Dean Isenberger
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Isenberger
PO Box 1377
Black Canyon City, AZ 85324
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 truly feel that Microsoft 
was erroneously singled out in this whole fiasco.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Isenberger



MTC-00012376

From: david said

[[Page 25588]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get this thing settled according to the already agreed 
upon ruling!! We have already wasted enough of the publics money 
just to satisfy some over-inflated egos!
    Thank You!
    David M. Said,
    Olympia, WA



MTC-00012377

From: Paul Ericson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02  11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle the MicroSoft case. It is in the interest 
of the American consumer to be protected from the harm that will 
come from the continued harrassment of a great American company 
named MicroSoft. Please take actions the will settle this case in a 
fair and equitable manner. Small businesses need companies like 
MicroSoft to innovate business solutions that will enhance our 
American Economy both now and into the future. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Paul E. Ericson, Business owner.
    Ericson Enterprises
    [email protected]
    63 Pleasant Street
    Lunenburg, MA 01462



MTC-00012378

From: Edwin Lenfestey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin Lenfestey
9209 East 40th Street
Tulsa, OK 74145-3715
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 has wasted enough of the taxpayers' dollars. 
The Governments continued interference in the marketplace at the 
behest of Microsoft's inept and whiney competitors constitutes a 
major nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers want 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom.
    If and when the Government understands that we the consumers 
want this to end, only then will the investors who propel our 
economy finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    A majority of Americans thought the Federal Government should 
not have instituted the action against Microsoft. So when the case 
is finally over, Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable time and resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Lenfestey



MTC-00012379

From: William Butler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Butler
449 Railroad Street
Flovilla, Ga 30216-2105
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. The government 
approved the merger of Time-Warner and AOL. Is that any different 
than Microsoft? No. No one has to buy Microsoft. I have used their 
products for a while. I have gotten several items free.
    Sincerely,
    George Butler



MTC-00012380

From: Ellen Sowins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ellen Sowins
92785 Knappa Dock Road
Astoria, OR 97103
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.
    Microsoft deserves every penny they have made over the years--if 
I can use their products and not mess up on the internet!! They've 
made my computer safe and smart and very forgiving of my errors.
    Sincerely,
    Ellen Sowins



MTC-00012381

From: Ray Stanke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a taxpayer and the government continues to waste money. 
Impose light penalties to insure compliance with consumer requests, 
and get on with life. The battle is NOT with people who have and 
continue to provide jobs and security. Like the movie, Field of 
Dreams; if someone out there can build a better system, people will 
buy and not buy m/s. Stop this stupid and time cosuming process and 
concentrate good things that have been and can be done.



MTC-00012382

From: Matt Katzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    I feel that Microsoft has been punished enough. It is time to 
end this action!
    The 9 states do not have a case to stand on, and are just trying 
to get there names in the press.
    It is one thing to prove that harm has been done, it is another 
thing to twist the legal system to support a personal vendetta 
against Microsoft.
    Please end this farce and approve the settlement
    Matt Katzer



MTC-00012383

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25589]]

    I would like to see all states join in the settlement and end 
the litigation and lawsuits.
    Thank you
    Dianne Shanander



MTC-00012385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has been dragged out far too long already. The previously 
proposed settlement seems fair. Continuing pressure from Microsoft 
competitors, should not be allowed to drag this on any longer.
    Robert A. Walser
    [email protected]
    P.O. Box 9689
    Pahrump, NV 89060



MTC-00012386

From: Sharon Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To who it may concern,
    The Microsoft settlement is a good thing. That's accept it and 
move on to other things. It is a good settlement for the company and 
the consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Wood



MTC-00012387

From: Neva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm twenty years old, and I've been using computers since I was 
a small child--I can't imagine a life without them. The first one I 
can remember properly was our Commodore 64. Seems ancient now, 
didn't even have a hard drive. And back then, I'd never heard of 
Microsoft, or Windows, or any of that. What, then, will happen 
twenty years from now if they're let off with a slap on the wrist? 
Will future generations ever be able to break away from them?
    Please, do something to stop the bundling and hidden APIs and 
the control Microsoft holds over any manufacturer that wants to use 
their product. First it was Microsoft Windows, then Windows Media 
Player and Office and the fact that I can no longer stop using 
Internet Explorer even if I wanted to. . .  what will it be for my 
kids?



MTC-00012388

From: Paul Osterhues BBA MCP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop the bickering and settle this case as is. The 
settlement is fair and reasonable. The whiners are complaining that 
this will enable Microsoft to gain a foothold in the schools. No one 
wants a operating system in their classroom that can only supports 
less than 5 % of the software available on the market today. Mac 
writes all of their software except Office Suite. My experience with 
schools is that the Mac's and apples are located in the janitor 
closet collecting cobwebs and dust. The teachers are migrating away 
from the former platform that is more expensive than Microsoft. You 
cannot run Mac on a Intel platform which businesses are donating to 
the school. There is only one vendor that sells the hardware for the 
Mac and that is Macintosh the manufacturer who is crying foul. If it 
was not for Microsoft who developed a office suite and also bailed 
them out from going bankrupt a couple of years ago, there would not 
be any computer platform for any Mac a holic to go to.If monetary 
amounts are imposed, their is no guarantee that the funds will 
actually show up in the needed schools classrooms as computer for 
the students. Case in point is our wonderful state of California and 
our pathetic schools in Los Angeles. The funds always get diverted 
to the special interest group who is supporting the corrupt system 
there.
    Paul Osterhues



MTC-00012389

From: nathan liskov
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/16/02  12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    One remedy that I think is very important to enhancing 
competition that has not been discussed widely in the press is the 
following:
    Microsoft should publish the detailed formats for the files 
generated by their office suite programs. Any future changes in 
these formats should be published at least 4 months in advance of 
selling updates with format changes. For example, Word produces .DOC 
files, Excel produces .XLS files, etc. The format of these files is 
not published and other competitors must use reverse engineering to 
figure them out. This process is usually imperfect resulting in less 
than full compatibility. Ideally one should be able to take a .DOC 
file that someone has written using Microsoft Word, view it and edit 
it in a competing product (e.g. Lotus WordPro or WordPerfect) and 
send in back to the originator who is using Microsoft Word. 
Similarly for .XLS spreadsheed files or .PPT (Microsoft Powerpoint), 
and so on. With this approach we could have transparency of format 
allowing use of competing office suite products with full 
compatibility.
    Thanks for your consideration,
    Nathan Liskov
    P.S. Microsoft should also be required to provide backward 
compatiblity translators so that we will not be required to upgrade 
each office product each time an upgrade comes out. As it is, 
Microsoft uses this incompatibility technique to force its customers 
to continually upgrade, paying for the same program over and over 
again.
    I don't do Windows!
    home: [email protected]
    homepages: http://nateliskov.ne.mediaone.net
    http://people.ne.mediaone.net/nateliskov



MTC-00012390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 2002
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I truly believe that the Microsoft workers have intended, in 
their labors, no malice to any via the software-items of their 
manufacture. It is just as true that anybody's computer-software is 
not harmful and is non-malignant. Were it lawful, it would, 
according to definition (of the word), be full of law. Might it have 
its own autonomy then, I ask? Also, might I query as to whether 
there is, maybe not as yet known, such a thing as the Department of 
Liberty to conjunct with the Department of Justice? Liberty and 
justice for all in re the Pledge of Allegiance.
    In my judgment, the Microsoft group is innocent and God bless 
them, I say.
    Sincerely from Geoffrey Doman
    13900 Cohasset Street
    Van Nuys, CA 91405-2501



MTC-00012391

From: Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle the Microsoft case, so we can get our economy 
moving again. I believe the case against Microsoft started our 
recession and the settlement will go along ways towards bringing us 
back again.
    Thank you,
    Dale Mcgee



MTC-00012393

From: Zemne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:44am
Subject: FINFLASH!
    To whom it may concern,
    Why doesn't the DOJ let Microsoft do what it does best and let 
the company continue to contribute to the rebuilding a sagging 
economy! If competitors would quit wasting taxpayers money suing and 
spend time trying to come up with new ideas it would make more 
sense.
    [email protected]



MTC-00012394

From: Linda M. Bettin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I think, as a citizen, that it is time to settle this matter 
with Microsoft. It has drug on for far too long as it is. The 
American public has a far greater problem to deal with. It is time 
to make a settlement and let Microsoft do what it does best and that 
is to make software.
    Thank You,
    Linda Bettin



MTC-00012395

From: Don Nguyen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:54am
Subject: AntiTrust settlement
    This is regarding the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the 
settlement has no teeth to it. This will allow Microsoft to do 
business as usual. Any settlement should actually remedy the 
situation instead of letting Microsoft continue to control the 
software market while only paying lip service to being fair to 
competitors. Although I currently use Microsoft's operating system 
and applications, it is not entirely a ``free'' choice.

[[Page 25590]]

Since Microsoft controls the market, I am forced to use their 
products so that I can be compatible with everyone else. (And with 
over 90 percent of the market, they obviously DO control the market 
and enjoy a monopoly.) This would not entirely be a negative thing 
IF Microsoft offered the best product out there. Microsoft continues 
to offer products that have serious bugs and do not work as 
advertised. I have been a dissatisfied user of their products since 
MS Windows 3.0 was offered. Since they control the market, the 
incentive to offer the most innovative AND stable products does not 
exist for them. They can offer a substandard product with the 
knowledge that most of their customers will eventually be FORCED to 
upgrade to the latest Microsoft product. Not only can Microsoft 
accomplish this without suffering any consequences, but they can 
then raise prices on the newest products to any level they wish. 
Consumers should have a better choice. Some viable competition in 
the software and operating systems markets would give us that. Do 
NOT let Microsoft off this time with just a slap in the wrist! They 
have gotten away with this too many times. The previous antitrust 
actions should be a lesson. Microsoft will not willingly comply with 
any settlement. (They may follow the letter of the law while 
spitting in the face of the spirit.) The settlement is a farce. 
Microsoft will be able to control their monopoly for a long time in 
the future if the settlement is not made stronger. The only people 
who benefit from this settlement are those at Microsoft. Not 
consumers. Do NOT let Microsoft fool you--they do NOT have the best 
interests of consumers in mind. They want to offer the least 
innovation and the least amount of stability for the highest price 
that they can get away with. Microsoft should be punished for their 
abuse of their monopoly. Thank you.
    Don Nguyen
    1253 Lindsay Street
    Chula Vista, CA 91913



MTC-00012396

From: Frank Scafidi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:02am
Subject: Micorsoft settlement
    Enough of this case! If anyone cares to check, the singular 
event which caused the stock markets to slide into the basement was 
the outrageous decision by U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield 
Jackson to fracture Microsoft into several parts. If nothing else, 
the degree to which Micorsoft and its products have become the de 
facto standard in an environment which changes daily, Judge 
Jackson's decision placed the entire tech world, and, by extension, 
the new economy on a path to instability. As the appelate court 
correctly found, that remedy was too severe. Now, with settlement at 
hand, a few unhappy states are threatening to put their sole 
interests above the interest of the nation by refusing to accept the 
settlement agreed to by the Department of Justice and Micorsoft. 
Further litigation of this matter offers nothing for the consumer--
the intended beneficiary of the action in the first place--beyond 
that which has already been agreed. If anything, drawing this out 
continues to hurt the consumer by diverting Microsoft's attention 
away from the creation of new products to defending a lawsuit whose 
issues are moot. Let's get off the back of one of the nation's most 
successful companies and end this case once and for all.
    Frank G. Scafidi
    Sacramento, CA



MTC-00012397

From: karsten koepcke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This settlement is bogus. They will find a way to circumvent the 
law as they have in the past. Judge Jackson had the right idea. The 
only way to have any competition is to break up the company into the 
OS provider and the software provider. Period. But, apparently no 
one in government seems to care much about the people except that 
they should shut up and keep one eye closed to the activities in 
Washington DC MS's offer to give schools PC's and software is merely 
an effort to make sure that that next generation knows nothing else 
but their products. Are you people so insulated from the real world 
that you don't see what's going on. For them to ``give away'' a 
million or even 10 million dollars is about as effective as fining 
the ILECs a million or two dollars for illegal activities when they 
earn billions! The last president, it seems to me, with any backbone 
in this arena, seems to have been Roosevelt, Teddy that is.
    Sincerely,
    Karsten Koepcke



MTC-00012398

From: Kat Daley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must comment on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. Microsoft 
has been the big stupid bully in the software game for far too long, 
stealing younger kids' lunch money and making them do its homework. 
And so far Microsoft's settlement offers are analagous to the bully 
saying, ``Well, I wouldn't beat them up if they'd just fork it over. 
. . .''
    I have been programming computers since 1977, when I was 12 and 
my father obtained a computer from a small firm in California. It 
used an operating system so similar to MS-DOS that I could switch 
with no difficulty to an MS-DOS computer years later. In fact, I 
could detect NO difference, which calls Microsoft's claim to 
``innovation'' into question from the start. I have also observed 
that small programs created by small companies to do nice little 
innovative things have been stolen repeatedly by Microsoft, which 
only disgorged licensing fees after strenuous legal battles.
    I have been forced to use Microsoft products for many years. In 
EVERY product, I have run up against faults which should have kept 
the product from being released. Instead, Microsoft has released 
these products and has created an environment in which program 
crashes and operating system errors are normal when they should be 
hideous exceptions.
    When I have used Microsoft's programming libraries, I have 
consistently run up against bugs which are simply unnacceptable in a 
professionally made product. When system resources are gobbled up by 
a program and never released properly, it is the most basic of 
programming errors. No professional programmer should ever release a 
product which does this, since it will inevitably cause the 
computer's operating system to crash-- especially one as delicate as 
Windows. Yet Microsoft has done so consistently.
    In fact, I believe Microsoft has cost this country untold 
billions in code faults alone. Every programmer I have ever known 
has spent hours or days tracking or fixing bugs which would not be 
there if Microsoft's products performed as advertised. Every person 
I've worked with who has used Microsoft's products has a harrowing 
crash story to tell. Every computer I've ever used has crashed many 
times for no apparent reason while I was running Microsoft's 
applications.
    In the interests of programmers everywhere, Microsoft must be 
forced to play nice instead of stomping all over the young smart 
companies with good ideas. At the very least, Microsoft must be 
forced to release all methods by which an application may 
communicate with the hardware of a computer through the operating 
system at least six months prior to operating system release. If 
Microsoft fails to comply, the operating system can not be sold to 
the public. And since Microsoft would undoubtedly give away the 
operating system free in that case if they thought they could make 
more money releasing Microsoft Office, NO APPLICATION utilizing the 
new operating system could be sold either. That is the VERY LEAST 
remedy which *might* level the playing field sufficiently to restore 
competition.
    I'd really like to see Microsoft divided into an operating 
system company and an applications company, but the Justice 
Department has ruled against that. I'd like to see all of 
Microsoft's actions vetted by the Justice Department to keep them 
from harassing small companies with frivolous lawsuits and giving 
advantages to retailers who play their noncompetitive games. I'd 
like all of Microsoft's ``intellectual property'' declared public 
domain because that's where Microsoft stole it from in the first 
place. Until Microsoft gets more than a ``bad boy'' slap on the 
wrist, the USA will continue to lose untold billions to software 
inefficiency. Hackers--and terrorists, I'm sure--will continue to 
find easy access to most of the nation's computers. And I and many 
other programmers will stop programming from sheer frustration.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Daley
    Former programmer



MTC-00012399

From: Larry Jubb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  7:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Jubb
198 South 16th St.
San Jose, CA 95112-2152
January 15, 2002

[[Page 25591]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars and failed to 
break up a hi-tech monopoly, viz. Operating Systems and Applications 
which are tied together in a manner that forces competition to 
respond to new developments AFTER microsoft already has had their 
``improved'' product on the market for some time. Additionally 
Mircosoft's predatory business practices have forced HARDWARE (PC 
clone makers) manufacturers to sell only Microsoft Operating Systems 
on their new machines.
    This has all resulted in a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry who want to start NEW businesses to compete with 
Microsoft. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over and Microsoft to be split up into at 
least TWO SEPARATE comapnies, one to do Operating Systems and to 
release the necessary information to BOTH the other company doing 
the Applications software development AS WELL AS to any and all 
competitors. It is my belief that Microsoft routinely makes changes 
to their software to degrade the reliability of any competitor's 
software running on any system that also has Microsoft's 
applications or Operating System software installed. Sadly, this 
also results in the Microsoft programs crashing more frequently. A 
case in point is Microsoft ``Word,'' one of the most commonly used 
word processors in the PC industry that has been around since the 
very early days of the industry even before Windows 1.0 superceded 
MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk Operating System) and which is the most 
crash-prone application I have seen in over 25 years in the computer 
industry.
    I have been an Electronics Design Engineer for 31 years in 
Silicon Valley and worked in the mainframe industry for Amdahl Corp. 
in the 1970's and early 1980's when the very first IBM PC was 
released. (We took one apart as soon as they came out to better 
understand what new business IBM was getting into in 1981.) I have 
been building computers since the days of the S-100 bus and the pre-
Apple I machines when Steve Wozniak used to bring his ``projects'' 
to the Homebrew Computer Club meetings at the Stanford Linear 
Accelerator Auditorium. Using every kind of computer and software in 
my electronics design consulting practice in Silicon Valley since 
the early 1980's, I have seen just about every sort of system crash 
and software bug imaginable. I have used everything from Mainframes 
to minicomputers to UNIX workstations and in all cases the largest 
number of major problems have been with PC's generally caused by 
software failures in products produced by Microsoft Corp. I believe 
this general unreliability and consequent lost productivity (it 
comes right off my ``bottom line'' as an independent consultant) is 
caused by a LACK OF COMPETITION enforced by Microsoft's unfair, 
unjust, and at times illegal and monopolistic business practices 
that have forced smaller companies out of business. What they can't 
force out they often buy out and this, too, is a loss to the end-
user/consumer.
    Consumers will be more likely to see competition in the 
marketplace rather than the courtroom if Microsoft is broken up and 
FORCED to compete in the area of Applications software programs that 
are compatible with Microsoft Windows or any future Operating System 
they may create. And the investors who propel our economy can 
finally breathe a sigh of relief as they realize the possibility of 
successfully COMPETING against Microsoft under laws that are fairly 
ENFORCED against ALL software companies, regardless of size.
    If the case is finally over, US companies, both large and small, 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means MULTIPLE COMPANIES creating better goods and 
offering superior services to consumers, NOT a monopoly that can 
force its business partners to sell an inferior product (in 
comparison to, e.g. UNIX or LINUX) along with their (the partner's) 
hardware or that can control BOTH Applications and Operating Systems 
which have to work together on the same system. With the Microsoft 
Monopoly out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of other corporations and competitors as well as consumers, 
the ``free market'' will once again pick the winners and losers on 
Wall Street. With the monopolistic reins off the high-tech 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 Jubb



MTC-00012400

From: Fred F. (038) Dolores Nunez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepersons,
    How can we say over $1 billion for disadvantaged public schools 
is not in the best interest of consumers and the public? Clearly, 
one of the major reasons why computer usage has grown to what it is 
today is because of Microsoft products, despite what their 
competition has to say. Disadvantaged youth is the untapped reserve 
for even greater household computer usage. And let's face it: These 
kids have a much greater chance of success in the workplace if they 
know how to use computers and popular Microsoft software. If 
disadvantaged kids don't get this knowledge in school, chances are 
they won't get it at all.
    Do what's in the best interest of the consuming public. Settle 
this case and let's move forward!
    Fred F. Nunez
    Redlands CA



MTC-00012401

From: Todd Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I little background on me I'm a professional software developer 
and have been for about four years now, but computers and the 
computing industry have been a big part of my life since I started 
coding when I was 8 and wrote my first video game at 9 (I'm 27 now).
    The news that the latest judgements against Microsoft will not 
break up the company deeply saddens me. Microsoft has consistently 
used their operating system monopoly to gain unfair advantage in 
other markets. They've done this in two ways.
    1. Microsoft's fails to release their complete programming APIs 
to public thus giving themselves an unfair advantage in any PC 
software market they wish to enter.
    2. Microsoft adds malicious code to their operating system to 
hurt competitors in markets they wish to enter. For example 
Microsoft added the caching of system DLLs in windows 2000 to break 
Install Shield so they could enter the installer market.
    As I result at my current company we will have to spend alot of 
money either rewriting our install in the new Microsoft installer 
product (which we would have to buy) or restructure our own product 
architecture.
    I had nothing to do with Microsoft's vendetta against install 
shield why should I have to pay? This is just one example of how 
Microsoft maliciously uses its monopoly power. Every second or third 
developer has a story about how Microsoft stabbed someone in the 
back (and they did stab Install shield in back because install 
shield helped them make their installer product). Any solution that 
doesn't break the operating system group into a separate company 
won't solve these kinds of problems. Even this may not solve the 
problem (there may still be lingering favoritism). The world should 
look toward a solution to the Microsoft problem that eventually 
breaks up the operating system and moves PC programming and 
development onto a virtual machine (I say eventually because the 
technology isn't ready yet give it 5-10 years)



MTC-00012402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have for years used Microsoft products. Why are Sun and Oracle 
making life difficult for all of us little people who are fine with 
things the way they are,
    Lila Murphy
    96 Rhode Island Avenue
    Newport, R. I. 02840



MTC-00012403

From: Dorothy G Randrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is to express my desire to settle the Microsoft case that 
is before you. Any more delay is an additional problem for the 
countries economy.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Dorothy G. Randrup



MTC-00012404

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25592]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is to ``give away'' software as part of this 
settlement. Doesn't anyone else see the total stupidity of this? The 
original case dealt with their monopoly. What software is Microsoft 
going to give away? Microsoft products. . .  thus PERPETUATING the 
monopoly. I keep hearing more and more about the settlement, and the 
more I hear, the more I realize that Microsoft is going to be 
allowed to do whatever it wants, including the blatant breaking of 
laws and the ability to maintain an effective monopoly.
    All throughout the trial, Microsoft wanted its ``freedom to 
innovate.'' Well, a little research will tell many people that 
Microsoft hasn't innovated a single thing. DOS was purchased for 
them. Windows is what they took out of the joint development of OS/2 
with IBM. There are too many early word processors to name. Lotus 1-
2-3 gave rise to Excel and Harvard Graphics to PowerPoint. NCSA 
Mosaic gave rise to Internet Explorer, a trademarked name Microsoft 
blatantly stole from a small company which Microsoft ran into the 
ground when they sued for trademark infringement. Sybase sold them a 
copy of their database server and they used it to make SQL Server. 
Outlook came from various other e-mail programs including Eudora.
    The consumers have lost their one chance to be given the choices 
they should have. This settlement is a sham.
    Joseph P. Ogulin
    Sterling, VA



MTC-00012405

From: Jeff Estes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs & Madames:
    I strongly feel that penalizing Microsoft by forcing them to pay 
a small fraction of their sizable cash assets will not improve the 
commercial software market. Forcing Microsoft to fully document and 
publish both their Windows APIs and their MS Office file formats 
will. It will once again allow non-Microsoft developers to 
contribute their ingenuity and efforts to make our software industry 
even more innovative and creative.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Jeffrey Estes
    Graduate Student, The Anderson School at UCLA
    136 Hermosa Avenue
    Long Beach, CA
    90802



MTC-00012406

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much in favor of the proposed antitrust settlement 
that the Department of Justice negotiated with Microsoft. I believe 
that consumers are benefited by having a strong company that is 
constantly innovating on the cutting edge of personal technology. I 
am glad to see some of the more aggressive acts of Microsoft now 
subject to monitoring, but I don't think that the government should 
help AOL/timewarner or any other huge company attempt to tear down 
Microsoft.



MTC-00012407

From: Sophie Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Should the Department of Justice decide that Microsoft pay in 
cash, rather than in equipment, I feel very strongly that Microsoft 
be made a party to and be given an ongoing accounting of Moines as 
they are spent. Government has a magical way of making money 
disappear. It would be a travesty of justice if this should happen 
and thousands of people were deprived of access to much needed, new 
computers. When all is said and done, the pettiness, jealousy and 
sheer vindictiveness exhibited toward Microsoft by some of its 
competitors and the government makes one wonder if the 
entrepreneurial spirit is still alive and well in the United States. 
. . . .and then there's Enron!!!! I wonder what action, if any, will 
be taken by the Department of Justice regarding the abuses in that 
situation.
    For once, please think of the public good rather than special 
interests and politics and let Microsoft donate equipment and 
training. .
    Sophie Fox



MTC-00012408

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We use Wetbusters.com and the Java chat rooms are helpful. 
Microsoft Corporation has decided to no longer include Java with the 
new version of Windows (called ``XP''), because Java was developed 
by a competitor, Sun Microsystems. Therefore, if you buy a new 
personal computer, in order to use Wetbusters chat rooms or many 
other modern chat rooms on the web, you must first download and 
install Java. This is a complicated process and takes 15-20 minutes 
with a standard modem connection. The process is even more 
complicated for America Online users. We feel that this is unfair to 
kids because a lot of kids will not be able to understand how to 
download and install Java, and kids new to the site simply won't 
make the effort. Because Microsoft is allowed to have a monopoly on 
the PC operating system, we feel that they have a responsibility to 
not abandon Java users (e.g. wetbusters kids). Therefore, we are 
requesting your help in persuading Microsoft to reverse their 
decision on removing Java from Windows. we request the U.S. 
Department of Justice require that Microsoft be required to include 
Java with Windows XP.
    Thank you very much for your help.



MTC-00012409

From: Don Ketchu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement:
    I think that this matter should be settled as soon as possible 
so the company can go about it's business without any more 
harassment.
    I think that Microsoft is a good company and does a lot of good 
for this country and the economy.
    Don. L. Ketchu



MTC-00012410

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:11am
Subject: Settlement
    Enough is enough. There was no case. Merely interferance.



MTC-00012412

From: Frank Eaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It seems to me that the problem is that Microsoft is a monopoly 
in the operating system business. To solve this problem you have to 
come up with a solution that will allow competition back into the 
operating system market. Breaking Microsoft up doesn't solve this 
problem, and certainly still maintains the application barrier to 
entry, along with disrupting the companies ability to come out with 
new software products. If a company could create an operating system 
that would provide the consumer some real advantage over Microsoft's 
operating system, and still allow the users of the operating system 
to continue using all the programs that the users is currently 
using, then this would be the optimum solution. Microsoft's software 
applications, like Microsoft Word, would still be purchased by 
users, allowing Microsoft to benefit from their software products, 
and still allow competition in the operating system business. In 
order to understand my solution you should understand how a program 
works. When Microsoft writes applications like Microsoft Word, they 
do so by using the Win32 API. If the public had access and were 
given documentation on the specifics of this API, then you could 
implement the API on an operating system other than Microsoft 
Windows, and have all Windows operating system application software 
run on that operating system. IBM was doing this for their OS/2 
operating system but gave up because Microsoft kept adding new API's 
and IBM couldn't keep up. Microsoft has always maintained that the 
Win32 API can not be licensed to anyone. If Microsoft were to 
license the Win32 API, then they would have an obligation to make 
sure that all licensees were informed when new API's were added, and 
provide support to customers trying to implement the Win32 API on a 
different operating system. Perhaps putting the Win32 API under 
public control, by making it a standard, would be the best solution 
of all. Then all public parties involved would be allowed the right 
to voice their opinions on new API's being added and the general 
direction of the standard. If the API were to be put under public 
control, then Microsoft would have to be ordered to implement the 
standard coming out of the public body controlling the standard. 
This is because, as

[[Page 25593]]

with most standards, companies can pick and choose which API's to 
implement, and may even add new API's to their implementation of the 
standard, or may implement a part of the standard in a manner that 
is actually contrary to the standard. So in order to make sure that 
Microsoft doesn't fall back into a monopoly status in the operating 
system business, they could be ordered to implement the full 
standard for say, 10 years. After the 10 years they could be treated 
like any other company implementing the Win32 standard.
    In that 10 year span, Microsoft could continue to innovate an 
release new software products to the public, the operating system 
business would be open to competition, and the application barrier 
to entry would be broken down. Business would actually have a choice 
when it came to an operating system, and they wouldn't have to worry 
about losing all the knowledge that their employees have gotten from 
using application software that was built on the Win32 API. For 
example, if a business were very concerned about security, and 
wanted to migrate to Linux because they felt that Linux provided 
them an advantage in regard to security over Microsoft Windows. Then 
they would only have to retrain their employees on how to use the 
new operating system, and not all the software applications that 
would be used on the new operating system.
    This solution puts the operating system on the same playing 
field as all other software applications on the market today. If I 
don't like the digital camera software application that I'm using 
today, and a friend recommends a different software application, I 
can go and buy the other software application and use it, without 
fear of losing the ability of running my word processor software 
application.
    Thanks for taking the time to read my comments, I hope that they 
were insightful and helpful.
    --Frank Eaves



MTC-00012413

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US computer industry has been damaged by the practices of 
Microsoft. The Windows operating system is no better than systems I 
used in college 15 years ago primarily because the Microsoft monoply 
does not need to compete.
    Unfortunately, the settlement does nothing to solve the problem 
and I do not support it.
    Steven Beard



MTC-00012414

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:36am
Subject: Drop the suit!!
    This suit against Microsoft is ridiculous!! This company has 
done more for the business world and the private sector than any 
other computer company. Can't those other companies work to come up 
with something comparable to Microsoft? I think it's a case of pure 
jealousy on their part. And without the Microsoft programs, the 
states that are bringing suit would not even be able to conduct 
their business.
    Jackie Daniels, Cheney, WA



MTC-00012415

From: John Prohodsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement concerns
    Gentlemen:
    The proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement does not offer 
consumers, including federal, state, and local governments, any 
relief while codifying Microsoft's predatory practices. This blatant 
approval and accommodation of flagrant violations of law which the 
Department of Justice is directed to enforce will be the next 
scandal. If the United States government is shown to be a party to 
the Enron bankruptcy by not enforcing the law, it will encourage 
examination of other government enforcement and oversight 
responsibilities. It would be especially troubling if the Department 
of Justice did not enforce the law. Public confidence in government 
would be undermined to the extent that government could not govern.
    I believe the facts speak for themselves. My comments do not 
reflect my personal beliefs.
    John Prohodsky



MTC-00012416

From: Murray Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Distinguished Members of the Bench:
    It is critical that we not continue to waste taxpayers dollars 
and your substantial capabilities rehashing a case that has long 
progressed past its time to impact those very consumers you purport 
to protect. The world of the internet is progressing to Gen4 and 
high tech is changing the way we live at a dramatic rate. You're too 
late. So please get on with it. Make a settlement now and focus your 
ample resources elsewhere. If there is anything to be learned from 
this case it is that your action must be much quicker if it is to be 
effective. If you have a 'real' case and not something just trumped 
up by disgruntled competitors who want you to do what they couldn't 
do in the market place, then you'll have to be able to make your 
case and win corrective action much more quickly. Not only has the 
bull gotten out of the barn before you've tried to close the door, 
but we aren't even using barns any more so it won't make any 
difference when you finally, if ever, do get the door shut.
    Best regards,
    Murray B Parker
    [email protected]



MTC-00012417

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir(s):
    I urge the Judge in this case to have the parties find 
settlement on the entire Microsoft matter as soon as possible as the 
delay in resolving this matter is injurious to the people of our 
Country and far more so than any Microsoft penalty could be. It 
seems to me that the hurt to the economy for this suit far out 
weighs any alleged actions Microsoft may or may not have committed.
    Accordingly, I urge very prompt settlement to this case to favor 
Microsoft. The Judiciary of this Country must take into 
consideration the invaluable service Bill Gates and Microsoft have 
provided this Country and indeed the World. I need not amplify this 
further sense it is beyond most peoples understanding and scope.
    No State Attorney General, no matter how well intentioned, will 
ever be able to justify further harm or injustice to Microsoft and 
this Country for continued action.
    Thank you for helping an appreciative consumer and market 
investor.
    Sincerely,
    Paul F. Barth
    [email protected]
    248-644-1411



MTC-00012418

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I opine that this Microsoft case be settled and the company 
allowed to move on because so much of the tech. world is dependent 
on microsoft already. However, MS should watch future endeavor to 
ensure that no further breach occur.
    Regards.



MTC-00012419

From: Afshin David Youssefyeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please keep pushing them. What you have agreed to is not enough. 
Open the API and standardize the file formats.
    Afshin Youssefyeh



MTC-00012420

From: Russ Cannon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:13am
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    I was deeply displeased with the lawsuit that the government 
brought against Microsoft. It has always been my view that antitrust 
laws were political weapons. It seems to me that there are many 
megacorporations that deserve antitrust scrutiny, but the selection 
of which companies to go after always seems to serve some political 
end.
    I have no great love for Microsoft, but I am altogether opposed 
to antitrust laws. It is impossible for any government to enforce 
such laws without bias in favor of political cronies and 
contributors. Monopolies abound in our economy, but one wonders why 
antitrust litigation is not brought more often. Perhaps it is 
because most companies know how to cozy up to political parties to 
obtain a pass on antitrust scrutiny.
    In the case of Microsoft, one cannot exclude the possibility 
that the government sought to plunder its large cash reserves in a 
sort of punitive tax on success. The entire lawsuit should be 
dropped. Failing this, the proposed settlement should be adopted by 
all parties as soon as possible, and the whole sordid mess should be 
put to rest.

[[Page 25594]]

    Russ Cannon
    Montgomery, Alabama



MTC-00012421

From: Carol Scholp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Scholp
301 Stearns Point Rd
Hot Springs, AR 71913
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I write to encourage the Justice Department to pursue the suit 
against Microsoft and its monopoly power in the computer market. 
Microsoft's offer of used equipment is an insult to the American 
public. How about having Microsoft supply new compatible equipment 
and training in its use to all schools who do not already have 
computer equipment/labs or cannot afford them? In light of the Enron 
debacle and their political contributions, I should think Microsoft 
with its contributions would want to tread softly and dispel any 
sense of impropriety.
    Please see to it that justice, not political expediency, is 
served.
    Sincerely,
    Carol A. Scholp



MTC-00012422

From: Vincent Mike Keyes III
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vincent Mike Keyes III
24842 Via Florecer
Mission Viejo, CA 92692
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Please leave this American Icon alone. They have paid their 
fees, their taxes and their employees and shareholders. You on the 
other hand have brought no value to the marketplace. The Microsoft 
trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, 
and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It 
is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying 
it, to be over. Consumers will 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.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Keyes



MTC-00012423

From: James THOMPSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not like Bill Gates or Microsoft. They deserve what they 
got and more. I do not like how they walked over so many little 
companies or bought them out in the middle on law suits. One of 
those law suits happening right in Salt Lake City, Utah. They break 
copy rights and then buy themselves out of law suits. They deserve 
every bit of punishment given to them. Bill Gates should lose all 
his interest in Microsoft and it should be broken up in little tiny 
pieces. I urge you the supreme court of the United States to not 
review the case unless you are going to punish them bigger and 
better than the lower courts have done.
    Thank you for letting me express my view. James L. Thompson



MTC-00012424

From: Charles Lyons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Lyons
80 Woodside Dr.
Penfield, NY 14526-2240
January 15, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Stop hurting one of America's great company's! America needs 
more Microsofts. The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, 
was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in 
the high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. 
Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government should 
not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies 
like Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and 
creating better products for consumers. .
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Lyons



MTC-00012425

From: Janet Hart
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Hart
6443 W. College Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85033-1647
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 L. Hart



MTC-00012426

From: John Cobb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Cobb
2115 Second Creek Dr.
Mobile, AL 36695
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

[[Page 25595]]

the reins off the high-tech 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 COBB



MTC-00012427

From: Paul Dartez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Dartez
9385 Placide Rd
Maurice, La 70555
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,
    Paul Dartez



MTC-00012428

From: Harvey Carter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harvey Carter
344 Lester Dr.
Boaz, Al 35957
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,
    Harvey L.Carter



MTC-00012429

From: David Gordon
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Gordon
15 Britton Road
Stockton, NJ 08559
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 Gordon



MTC-00012430

From: Fred Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Williams
515 42nd SE
Paris, tx 75462
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 Williams



MTC-00012431

From: Jennie Shook
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennie Shook
3071 Victoria Lane
Alpine, CA 91901
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

[[Page 25596]]

entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jennie M. Shook



MTC-00012432

From: Zoe Alvarez
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Zoe Alvarez
1432 NW 26 Avenue
Miami, FL 33125-2130
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,
    Zoe Alvarez



MTC-00012433

From: Ellis Grier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ellis Grier
29 Bluff Drive
Richmond Hill, GA 31324
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    ellis grier



MTC-00012434

From: Diane Collins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Collins
944 Ark 175
Hardy, Ar 72542
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,
    Diane Collins



MTC-00012435

From: John Ballard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Ballard
4900 NW 52nd Court
Tamarac, FL 33319
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Ballard



MTC-00012436

From: Clyde Hart
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dlyde Hart
18 Pin Oak Estates Ct.
Bellaire, TX 77401
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

[[Page 25597]]

the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be 
encouraged to create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    clyde d. hart



MTC-00012437

From: Scott Hair
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Hair
511 Tish Circle #1912
Arlington, TX 76006-3554
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 Hair



MTC-00012438

From: Doris H. Shields
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Doris H. Shields
2809 Lawrence
Irving, TX 75061
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,
    Doris H. Shields



MTC-00012439

From: Mary Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Williams
6305 Banyan St
Cocoa, Fl 32927
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,
    Mary Williams



MTC-00012440

From: Edward Hughes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Hughes
1909 Reagan St
Mission, TX 78572
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 Hughes



MTC-00012441

From: Green John
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Green John
2125 Elanita Dr
San Pedro, CA 90732-4433
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than

[[Page 25598]]

bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers 
on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 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 J. Green



MTC-00012442

From: Ken Harris
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken Harris
2831 Springflower Dr.
Wilson, NC 27896-6923
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Harris



MTC-00012443

From: David Lord
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lord
7700 Hillmont Dr.
Columbus, GA 31909
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 L. Lord



MTC-00012444

From: Richard G. Meyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard G. Meyer
3788 F. Street
Lincoln, NE 68510
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 G. Meyer



MTC-00012445

From: Patricia Allen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Allen
1204 20th
Nederland, TX 77627
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 Allen



MTC-00012446

From: Jo Puntil
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jo Puntil
332 Park Ave
Long Beach, CA 90814
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

[[Page 25599]]

corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will 
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the 
reins off the high-tech 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 Puntil Sheltman



MTC-00012447

From: Rebecca Steward
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rebecca Steward
HCR4 Box 43024
Alturas, CA 96101-9505
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,
    Nick L. Steward



MTC-00012448

From: Larry Mccollum
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Mccollum
3928 Sir Payne Ct.
Las Vegas, Nv 89104
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Mccollum



MTC-00012449

From: Thomas Welch
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Welch
360 Hunsaker Ln.
Eugene, OR 97404
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 S. Wlech



MTC-00012450

From: Don Doyle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  2:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Doyle
127 Rees street
Playa del Rey , Ca 90293
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Doyle



MTC-00012451

From: Warren Miller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren Miller
1750 Albion
Burley, ID 83318
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 25600]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Warren S. Miller



MTC-00012452

From: Marlene Nymeyer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marlene Nymeyer
25508 South Klemme
Crete , IL 60417
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, Marlene Joyce Nymeyer



MTC-00012453

From: Ella Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ella Brown
5254 Clover Valley Rd
Johnstown, OH 43031-9320
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,
    Ella R Brown



MTC-00012454

From: Bill Albright
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Albright
1809 Shepherd Court 107
Waukesha, WI 53186
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,
    Bill Albright



MTC-00012455

From: Michael White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael White
105 Jessamine Trail
Lawrenceville, GA 30045-8867
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 white



MTC-00012456

From: Forrest McIntyre
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Forrest McIntyre
10 Sylvan Lane
Hilton Head, SC 29928
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 25601]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Forrest McIntyre



MTC-00012457

From: Larry Figley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Figley
4716 Old State Road
Willard, OH 44890
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 R. Figley



MTC-00012458

From: Barry Dockery
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barry Dockery
805 Bluefield Rd
Lexington, SC 29073
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,
    Barry E Dockery



MTC-00012459

From: Donna Wallace
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Wallace
58 Owens Road
Dallas, ga 30157
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 Wallace



MTC-00012460

From: Diane Rousseau
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Rousseau
Candlewood Hill Rd.
Higganum, CT 06441-0072
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,
    Diane Rousseau



MTC-00012461

From: Margaret Clark
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Clark
203 Beverly St.
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.

[[Page 25602]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. Margaret Clark



MTC-00012462

From: Jerry Dowdy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Dowdy
204 Rolling Hills Blvd
Florence, MS 39073
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Dowdy



MTC-00012463

From: Thomas Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Arbtin



MTC-00012464

From: Curt Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Curt Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Curt Arbtin



MTC-00012465

From: Amanda Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Amanda Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Amanda Arbtin



MTC-00012466

From: Gary Dalton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Dalton
7500 Martha Court
Fayetteville, NC 28314
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

[[Page 25603]]

stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 L. Dalton



MTC-00012467

From: Theresa Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theresa Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Theresa Arbtin



MTC-00012468

From: Harold Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Brown
804 Dogwood Road
North Palm Beach, Fl 33408-4136
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 Brown



MTC-00012469

From: Addie Ng
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Addie Ng
11560 W. Eagle Lake Drive
Maple Grove, MN 55369-6173
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,
    Addie H. Ng



MTC-00012470

From: William Clark
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Clark
132 S 15th St
Kansas City, KS 66102
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Clark



MTC-00012471

From: Nick Steward
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nick Steward
HCR4 Box 43024
Alturas, CA 96101-9505
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 25604]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nick L. Steward



MTC-00012472

From: Jean Kirkpatrick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Kirkpatrick
2675 Island View Road
Fort Mill, SC 29708-6405
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 Kirkpatrick



MTC-00012473

From: Daniel Haynes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Haynes
1846 Alburn Place
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
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,
    Daniel Haynes



MTC-00012474

From: Janet Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Williams
5352 East 32nd Street
Tucson, AZ 85711-6508
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 Williams



MTC-00012475

From: David Hendley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Hendley
PO Box 382
Lakeland, Ga 31635-0382
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 Hendley



MTC-00012476

From: Bobby Gochnauer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobby Gochnauer
505 Newton Street
Macon, Mo 63552-1172
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 25605]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bobby Gochnauer



MTC-00012477

From: Chellsea Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chellsea Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chellsea Arbtin



MTC-00012478

From: Michaela Arbtin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michaela Arbtin
919 89th Dr. N.E
Everett, WA 98205-1495
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michaela Arbtin



MTC-00012479

From: Mary Zuschlag
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Zuschlag
9263 W. 103rd Ave.
Westminster, CO 80021-5200
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,
    Mary Zuschlag



MTC-00012480

From: Robert Horstmeier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Horstmeier
112 Stanton Street
Davis, IL 61019-0183
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 Horstmeier



MTC-00012481

From: Kathleen Somerville
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathleen Somerville
1424 Forest Dr.
Chillicothe, MO 64601
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of

[[Page 25606]]

stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Somerville



MTC-00012482

From: Donald Crean
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Crean
3109 Evanshire Place
Tallahassee, FL 32303-2554
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 F. Crean



MTC-00012483

From: Howard A. Ross
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard A. Ross
55 Co. Rt. 23
Harrisville, NY 13648-3225
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rev. Howard A. Ross



MTC-00012484

From: Ronald Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Williams
4206 Gertrude St.
Simi Valley, Ca 93063-2928
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,
    Ron Williams



MTC-00012485

From: Howard Farmer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Farmer
946 Holbrook Circle
Ft Walton Beach, FL 32547-6735
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Howard L Farmer



MTC-00012486

From: Robert Barnes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Barnes
2532 Ridgmar Blvd., Apt. 8
Fort Worth, TX 76116-2532
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 25607]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 W. Barnes



MTC-00012487

From: wllliam coldiron
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
william coldiron
20301 e. clinton rd
jackson, ca 95642-9660
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 coldiron



MTC-00012488

From: Dr.William Gibbons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dr.William Gibbons
703 Beaumont Drive
Altoona, PA 16602
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.William P Gibbons



MTC-00012489

From: Dominick Chiricosta
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dominick Chiricosta
3940 Rand Rd.
Auburn, CA 95602-9090
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,
    Dominick Chiricosta



MTC-00012490

From: Gerald Morrison
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Morrison
619 Five Mile Rd
Richlands, NC 28574
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Morrison



MTC-00012491

From: Gary Schinnell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Schinnell
1393 North 770 West
Orem, UT 84057
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 25608]]

    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Schinnell



MTC-00012492

From: Revelene Schwartz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Revelene Schwartz
200 Atrium Way #2003
Columbia, SC 29223-6512
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,
    Revelene Schwartz



MTC-00012493

From: Mary L Marquis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary L Marquis
1600 Skyview Drive
Irving, TX 75060-4712
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mary L. Marquis



MTC-00012494

From: Jennifer Ham
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jennifer Ham
2002 Shadow Cliff
San Antonio, TX 78232
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. and Mrs. Robert Dwayne Ham



MTC-00012495

From: George Green
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Green
120 Deer Park Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35210-2614
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. and Mrs George T. Green



MTC-00012496

From: Vivian Kersey
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vivian Kersey
265 N. Dixie Dr. #17
St. George, Ut 84770
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 25609]]

products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vivian I. Kersey



MTC-00012497

From: Christopher Hussar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christopher Hussar
17175 Snowberry Dr
Reno, NV 89511
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,
    Christopher J. Hussar



MTC-00012498

From: Richard Parsons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Parsons
1305 N Kent Rd
Hutchinson, Ks 67501
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 Parsons



MTC-00012499

From: Sandra Dilllard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  2:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Dilllard
P. O. Box 39
N. Bonneville, WA 98639
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Sandra A. Dillard



MTC-00012500

From: Linda Campbell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Campbell
3676 Looxahoma Circle
Senatobia, ms 38668
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 Fay Campbell



MTC-00012501

From: Everett D. Jenkins Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Everett D. Jenkins Sr.
4433 Co. Rd. 6
Kitts Hill, , Oh 45645-8777
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 25610]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Everett D. Jenkins Sr.



MTC-00012502

From: William Heberling
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Heberling
823 Evans Dr.
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284-1255
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. & Mrs. William Heberling



MTC-00012503

From: Constance Bartholomew
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constance Bartholomew
14110 Ensign Road
Burton, OH 44021
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,
    Constance E. Bartholomew



MTC-00012504

From: Glen Mathias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I would like to request that included in the settlement, MS be 
required to give consumers a choice of installing a Java Compliant 
Virtual Machines for running java applets inside the browser. The 
choice should be real, not one where customers have to choose 
between downloading one over the internet (i.e 30+ minutes) vs their 
non-Java Compliant VM that comes on the install CD.
    I am an IT professional with 14 years of experience. I would 
like to say that firstly I was disappointed if not appalled to hear 
the terms of the proposed settlement. To most IT professionals, 
Microsoft has successfully exploited the system in the past as there 
was little or no legal precedence with regards to IT.
    However there is little or no reason for this to happen today. 
Over the past 14 years I have worked with a variety of technologies 
and have developed software on all three major platforms; 
Mainframes, PC's and Web-based. The past 3 years I have been 
developing software primarily in Java, a technology that I love and 
one truly embraced by the industry.
    As an example of how Microsoft is trying to squash this 
technology (and it looks like they will be successfull again), they 
have refused to give consumers the choice for installing a Java 
compatible Virtual Machine in their Web Browser. Instead, consumers 
be default get the Microsoft Virtual Machine intalled to run all 
Java Applets. Their Virtual Machine is not Java-Compliant, and 
consumers should not have to install it without being given a 
choice. As a java developer, if I cannot count on consumers having a 
Java Compliant Virtual Machine, I cannot count on my programs 
executing consistently over different versions of Microsoft's 
browser. This should not be allowed to happen again to Java; a 
technology that is being used by so many.
    I would like to request that included in the settlement, 
Microsoft be required to give consumers a choice of Java Compliant 
Virtual Machines for running java applets inside browser. The choice 
should be real, not one where consumers can choose to download and 
install a Java compliant VM over the internet (i.e 30+ minutes) vs 
Microsoft's non-compliant that is easily available on the install 
CD.
    Thanking You for your time and consideration
    Glen Mathias
    201-679-9155



MTC-00012505

From: Lloyd Herman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/15/02  11:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lloyd Herman
6605 Blue Water Ave.
Sarasota, FL 34231
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 abruptly stop the political/liberal flogging of 
Microsoft. The entire world envies us an enterprise like this, yet 
here we have uncompetitive crybabies, politicians and liberals 
trying to shatter a major stone in the foundation of our economy.
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd D. Herman

[[Page 25611]]



MTC-00012506

From: Anthony Gabriele
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Gabriele
13 Whitpain Drive
Ambler, PA 19002-5128
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers 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 saw how the government wasted millions of tax payers money 
going after IBM and after 10 years proved nothing. IBM finally was 
de-thronged by the market place.
    Please let Microsoft do what it does best--create some really 
useful and affordable software for everyone.
    This litigation has cost me not only the wasted tax dollars but 
also thousands of dollars in lost money in my 401k plan.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony L. Gabriele



MTC-00012507

From: Anina Berthold
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anina Berthold
2197 S. Wilmington Circle
Salt Lake City, UT 84109-1228
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. **If Mountain Bell would have 
not been broken up in the early 80's and been allowed to maintain 
it's status as a monopoly and not had resulted in the breakup it did 
(I would probably not have been disabled from my job after 19 years, 
many would not have been laid off or fired or replaced by temporary 
workers); as in the old bumper sticker which read: ONE SYSTEM. . . 
IT WORKS. . . there would be more cooperation among every employee, 
every customer, ever manager, every CEO in EVERY company. . . 
encouraging teamwork and mass production on a National and Global 
level. . . as well AS JOB SECURITY and SENIORITY & LOYALTY, and 
EVERY POSITION in and to a company would STILL mean something 
substantial!!! Thank you for this opportunity to share my views. 
Miss Anina Christine Berthold Mt Bell, US West Direct (Aug 1973 to 
Sept 1992) PS Besides that. . . I do NOT want my service with webtv 
(through MSN TV Service) to udergo any more changes than it already 
has!
    Sincerely,
    Anina C. Berthold



MTC-00012508

From: Phillip Morelock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Public Servants, (DOJ, Sen. Boxer, Sen. 
Feinstein) I strongly support punishing Microsoft to the fullest 
extent allowed by law. They are repeat law breakers who will 
continue to willfully break and twist and bend our nation's laws as 
long as they possibly can. If they were street criminals instead of 
business predators, the three strikes laws would be kicking in right 
about now.
    The only penalty that really makes sense to me is to force 
open-- quickly and fully--the entire API for all Windows operating 
systems as well as all Office file formats. They should also be 
forced to fully divulge all documentation they have on any and all 
Windows and Office APIs. This would allow truly equal competition on 
both the operating systems front and (more importantly) the 
applications front, where they are clearly leveraging the OS 
monopoly into a longer-term productivity monopoly.
    I vote in every election. I pay my taxes. And I put my 2 cents 
toward punishing Microsoft fully.
    Yours,
    Phillip Morelock
    Los Angeles, CA
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,senator@feinstein. . . .



MTC-00012509

From: cargod01
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I don't believe that Microsoft should be broken up (yet); 
I do feel that they are pushing towards an even stronger monopoly 
with their new Product Activation > Subscription Software scheme. 
They do need a huge slap in the checkbook and ongoing oversight.



MTC-00012510

From: Tom Lane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The punishment reached by the court for Microsoft is just and in 
the best interest of the consumer and the economy. Please disregard 
the self interest allegations of the nine states. Tom LaneGet more 
from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com



MTC-00012511

From: Alexander Kabakov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:25am
    I have a B.Sc in computer science and think Microsoft's policies 
are anti-competitive and will do increasing harm to the tech sector 
in the long-run if something isn't done about it.
    Alexander Kabakov



MTC-00012512

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:44am
Subject: microsoft
    Dear Sir's;
    Please save us from this liberal attack on the rights of people 
who are completely happy with Microsoft and their products. Greed 
seems to be the motivation here to do in Microsoft.
    John C. Meskimen
    2221 University St
    Gautier Miss 39553
    [email protected]



MTC-00012513

From: Bruce Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. Antitrust Division U.S. Department of 
Justice
    The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to 
all parties involved.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is good for my family and 
the American economy. I believe the Microsoft case should be settled 
and not further litigated.
    Bruce Adler
    7 Loblolly Lane
    Wayland, MA 01778



MTC-00012514

From: Nutton, Thomas G

[[Page 25612]]

To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe this offer should be accepted and the case closed.



MTC-00012515

From: G Gerig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:01am
Subject: Public comment on Microsoft antitrust case
    Ms. Hesse:
    I want to register my support for a speedy settlement of what I 
consider a shameful, even contemptible attack on the very core of 
American free enterprise.
    For the record, I am not affiliated in any way with Microsoft or 
anyone related thereto. But the Justice Department's decade-old war 
against Bill Gates and the Microsoft Corporation, apparently for the 
heinous crime of succeeding in the American dream and profiting 
justly from that success, is if nothing else a flag indicating the 
need for a thorough overhaul of the entire edifice of antitrust 
laws, with an eye toward repeal.
    I find it most odd, for example, that if a given corporation 
creates a new product for which there is high demand, and prices it 
accordingly under the principles of basic economics (supply & 
demand,) it is attacked under antitrust law as ``price-gouging'' and 
``attempting to corner a market.'' But if that corporation lowers 
the price of its creation, (even to zero in the case of Microsoft's 
Internet software)--to the vast benefit of its customers-- it is 
charged under antitrust law with ``unfair competition'' and 
subjected to years of state persecution on a par with a Medieval 
Inquisition. The modern equivalent of the accusation ``Heretic!''--
which utterance alone was as good as a conviction and sentence--has 
merely been replaced with the term ``Monopolist!''
    The entire action against Microsoft was reportedly initiated by 
complaints to the government by Microsoft's second-rate competitors 
such as Netscape, Sun and the like. They ran to the government in 
the manner of whining, spoiled children throwing a tantrum before 
Mommy and Daddy, complaining that because they'd failed to produce 
products to equal or surpass Microsoft's in the courtroom of the 
American marketplace, they needed a viable excuse to drag Microsoft 
into the courtrooms of America's legal system--to ``achieve'' by 
force what they couldn't by ingenuity and productivity.
    Enter the infinitely malleable tool of antitrust law, which Alan 
Greenspan once equated with the capricious edicts of a dictatorship. 
The United States Justice Department thereby became, in effect, the 
``heavy'' in a gargantuan protection racket. When private citizens 
attempt to do this sort of thing, they're arrested and thrown in 
jail.
    Random computer techies have railed for years about their 
personal likes and dislikes of esoteric aspects of Microsoft 
products--all of which are irrelevant in this context. Like it or 
not, the Microsoft operating systems became and remain the 
predominant choice of computer users. With every revision and with 
the emergence of each of its competitors' alternate systems, the 
market--which means the free choices of free individuals-- decided 
that Microsoft's products would continue to dominate the computer 
industry. The operating systems of Sun, Apple, etc. were available, 
but the public chose Microsoft. No one forced anyone to purchase 
Microsoft products - people simply evaluated them as preferable to 
others on a consistent basis.
    Where there is free choice, there is no coercion. Where there is 
no coercion, there is no violation of rights. Where there is no 
violation of rights, there is no justification for the intrusion of 
the state.
    Microsoft became a target for attack for the same reason that 
every person or entity that rises above others becomes a target: 
envy. In retrospect, it's arguable that the motives behind the 
assault on Microsoft are identical at the core level to those behind 
the assault on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001: Hatred 
of wealth, of prosperity, of achievement, of capitalism in general.
    There is another aspect of the Microsoft Witch Hunt that I find 
particularly repulsive. Like the similar Tobacco Witch Hunt, it has 
become a fairly obvious means for state bureaucrats to milk a very, 
very deep set of pockets for revenue--without having to go through 
that tedious and distasteful business of getting a tax increase past 
voters. (Didn't America once fight a war to shed the abuses of an 
insulated monarchy?)
    Virtually as I write this, California Governor Gray Davis is 
attempting to ``securitize'' money extorted from tobacco companies--
in order to cover the State's financial shortfall resulting from his 
policies; In the heat of the Clinton Administration's assault on 
Microsoft, one could almost hear the salivating of those who stood 
to rake in the proposed billions in fines and fees imposed under the 
persecutorial robbery of antitrust.

--Is this any way for state governments to fund their budgets? I 
regard these actions--against the tobacco industry, Microsoft, and 
the similar attempts made against Intel and a handful of other 
American ``overachievers''--as, collectively (all puns intended,) 
the most dangerous abuses of American citizens and institutions by 
government officials in the history of this country. If the term 
``justice'' is to retain any meaning, this has got to stop.
    Pepperdine University economist George Reisman identified the 
concept of ``Platonic Competition''--a situation in which everyone 
is exhorted to compete, but no one is allowed to win. It's logically 
and ethically perverse--yet that is the very condition proposed 
under antitrust.
    [ Reisman is far more eloquent and precise than me--I will refer 
you to three of his articles, with which I agree fully. . .  
``Microsoft and Its Enemies'' (9/27/98) at: http://
www.capitalism.net/articles/microsft.htm ``A Brief For Microsoft'' 
(3/13-14/2000) at: http://www.capitalism.net/articles/BriefMS1.htm
    ``The Meaning of the Government's Proposal to Break Up 
Microsoft'' (4/30/2000) at: http://www.capitalism.net/articles/
Microsoft%20Breakup.html ] My interest in this issue arises 
primarily out of a concern for the future of American freedom. Human 
beings literally cannot survive without the freedom to produce, 
keep, and trade the material means required for the continuation of 
life, liberty, and happiness. But political freedom cannot exist 
without economic freedom--the destruction of one, in whole or in 
part, necessarily means the proportional destruction of the other.
    The famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (Reisman's mentor, 
as it happens,) warned that government controls on the market 
inevitably breed further controls, and that if the trend is never 
reversed, government interventionism will escalate to the point 
where every facet of economic activity is controlled by the state--
the ``Zwangswirtschaft'' of Nazi Germany being the most vivid 
example.
    It is time to end the witch-hunts, to reform and/or dismantle 
the corrupt legislation under which they're conducted (i.e. 
antitrust,) and to restore the battered freedoms we require for our 
very survival as free individuals.
    Thank you for listening, I realize that my conception of 
``brevity'' is frequently stunning. . . 
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Gerig
    Montrose, CA USA



MTC-00012516

From: James loren Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James loren Thompson
564 E 600 N #3
Spanish Fork, UT 84660
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 25613]]

    James loren Thompson



MTC-00012517

From: John White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John White
164 Northridge Dr Apt 2
Shawano, WI 54166-2036
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 H. White, III



MTC-00012518

From: jo tarantino
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jo tarantino
4528 Rosemont avenue
la crescenta, ca 91214
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 tarantino



MTC-00012519

From: Bartley Benson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bartley Benson
9748Kelly Cem. Rd.
Maceo, ky 42355-9752
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bartley C Benson



MTC-00012520

From: Matt Modell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Matt Modell
7 N. Randall Ave Apt. 6
Madison, WI 53715
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Modell



MTC-00012521

From: Betty L. Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betty L. Smith
Rt. # 8 Box 153A
Marietta, OH 45750
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25614]]

    Sincerely,
    Betty L Smith



MTC-00012522

From: Duane Miller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Duane Miller
1711 W. Pine St.
Lodi, Ca 95242-3146
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Duane M. Miller



MTC-00012523

From: Norman Leathers
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/16/02  6:08am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Lets get on with it. Lets stop wasting time and taxpayers money. 
The settlement is fine as it is. Some States are just to greedy and 
if looked into the relatives or close friends are making money on 
the deal. That is how Massachusetts governers arrive in office as 
paupers and leave office as millionairs. The Microsoft settlement is 
fine and fair as is.



MTC-00012524

From: Andy Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: pAs an American citizen and a user of 
many Microsoft products I am certainly happy to see that the Tunney 
Act is apparently heading in the right direction concerning the 
antitrust settlement.
    Though I am an engineer and not an economist, with what I have 
read and understand concerning this mater, I believe that our 
economy will benefit should this be settled. Our economy is based 
upon free trade; when a manufacturer makes a product that, in my 
opinion, is far superior to that of the competition, and a majority 
of the public wishes to use that product, how can the determination 
be made that a monopoly exists? I don't support monopolies, but when 
the competition's products ``don't measure up,'' I don't feel the 
Microsoft situation is a monopoly. The public demands the superior 
product, and Microsoft makes the superior product. The Department of 
Justice is an entity of the American Government, and the government 
is here to serve the public; please serve the American people and 
consider settlement.
    Thank you very much.
    Best regards,
    Robert A. (Andy) Wood



MTC-00012525

From: nmmr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:19am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is far past the time when this case should have been settled. 
Stop the litigation! The continued litigation is meant to destroy 
free enterprise and a company that has done great things for all of 
us. It is not wrong to be good at something in the USA and to 
prosper!!!
    N.M.Rademacher
    Minneapolis, MN 55430
    [email protected]



MTC-00012526

From: Larry J.Schexnaydre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its time to move on with this issue. I feel that it is in the 
best interest of the Country and especially to the ECONOMY to stop 
any further litigation.
    Larry J. Schexnaydre
    160 Murray Hill Dr.
    Destrehan,La. 70047-3518



MTC-00012527

From: Lavon (038) Mary Abbott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:45am
Subject: Review
    I feel the JDhas been wrong in this matter from the start and is 
the cause of much of the economic problems that we are goinh through 
now. Doublr your offer in cash or in kind materials and computers 
and get this over with. The DJ is wrong but settlement is much 
needed. Hudson L Abbott. I own Microsoft stock but I am first an 
ammerican that thinks this was bad from the start.
    Agressive political JD egged on by jelious competors. Get your 
FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.



MTC-00012528

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:57am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi Doj
    Please settle the microsoft litigation. Enough time and expense 
has been taken on this matter.
    I feel that turning this (the settlement) into another ``OJ'' 
type extraviganza will happen if many people have their way. For 
some reason We as Americans tend to not just resolve a matter, but 
bury it also. This is no good for our country or our economy.
    It is time to accept the settlement now . Osama is our enemy, 
not Bill Gates. psincerely,
    jack clayton/[email protected]



MTC-00012529

From: Mike Barry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    As to the Microsoft case, I would like to go on record to state 
that as a concerned citizen, the proposed settlement is indeed in 
the public interest. Please see to it that the Microsoft case is 
settled without further litigation. The proposals by Microsoft seem 
to be more than fair.
    Michael G. Barry
    [email protected]



MTC-00012530

From: TS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:08am
Subject: Use of the Microsoft's $1Billion offer
    I am glad that the DOJ rejected Microsoft's offer to flood 
schools with their computers. I also believe they should be held 
liable for their monopolistic tendencies(I know, technically MS is 
not a ``monopoly'', just like we are not at 'War' with the Taliban 
and Al Qaida).
    Here are some proposals for remedies in the MS suit to reduce 
their current anti-trust liability: Have Microsoft give the 
previously offered $1 Billion in equipment and software to the US 
government and the states to be used for computerized voting before 
the next presidential election. p(remember IBM did all the scores 
and stats at the olympics, the next election should be simple 
compared to that and should not cost $1B) pMany states can not 
afford the equipment to change from punch card ballots machines to 
computerized voting. Everyone agrees(at least the intellectual 
people) that computerized voting will prevent situations like the FL 
butterfly ballot. Putting machines in a voting area for occasional 
use does not lead to the same market-share capture that would occur 
if schoold children were using the machines on a daily basis. (e.g. 
NCRs control of ATMs does not make people want to have an NCR 
machine at home)
    Even better have them spend a few extra hundred million on a 
secure database that can be used for the national results and 
develop training for users. They could also computerize voting cards 
and provide for voting on the Internet (If the internet is secure 
enough to use your credit card, why not cast a vote on it). I 
realize that only 50% of the US currently has access to the internet 
but allowing Internet voting does not disenfranchise someone from 
using the old fashioned method of going to a polling location. Let's 
quit saying what we can't do and take action to prove we are the 
most technologically advance country in the

[[Page 25615]]

world. (Many European countries already allow voting over the 
Internet so does that mean they are more democratic than we are 
because they make it easier for their citizens to vote).
    If they have another $1Billion in hardware and software to 
share, they should send it to support the poor countries that we are 
fighting to clean up. Put some hardware and software on the ground 
to help the Afgan and Somali governments. I believe India has more 
MCP's than the US so we could hire them to work for these 
governments, leaving more American jobs open for Americans instead 
of green-card visitors.
    Either solution can serve as a punishment for MS and save 
taxpayers a great deal of money. Both ideas help the US. The last 
item that is needed with respect to MS oversight is that they need 
to be evaluated and audited in a manner similar to the automobile 
industry.
    How safe is their software (like the Insurance Institutes crash 
tests) using typical consumer purchased solutions (i.e. based on 
average purchased computer hardware and software configurations, not 
MS specialized configurations: what is the status of crash 
worthiness, crash frequency, severity of data loss during crash, 
theft prevention, unauthorized access when on the internet )?
    How long does it take the computer to boot up or re-boot based 
on purchased configurations (something like evaluating a vehicle's 
gas mileage)?
    With reference to Apple's Steve Job, imagine how long it takes 
to boot your computer. Multiply that effect times the number of 
computers and the number of times you have to re-boot. Multiply that 
times the average cost per hour of workers or free time of an 
individual and calculate the time and cost wasted sitting in front 
of a computer while waiting for it to re-boot. E.g. a one-minute re-
boot times 50 million computers (rough estimate of the MS computer 
count) at 60 seconds per re-boot is the equivalent of 350,000 man-
days or 100 man-years of lost time each day. Re-phrased, the US 
loses more than one average persons life in time each day waiting 
for MS computers to re-boot. We need to find a better way to use the 
time of over 400 people a year than sitting in front of a re-booting 
machine.
    The goal of this evaluation would not be directed at punishing 
them but instead would be used to drive them to improve their 
performance in a way that benefits the US public since normal market 
place controls can not penetrate through their monopolistic 
characteristics. The evaluations should be done quarterly, they 
should be based on a few areas of concern (perhaps no more than the 
two items mentioned above) and like the auto-industry, failure to 
comply with goals that have been set can result in a penalty.
    For instance, set the re-boot goal to the current average time 
of all computers and if MS computers take longer than others start 
lowering their allotted time by 4% a year (60 second re-boot would 
need to be 57.5 after the first year).



MTC-00012531

From: Duncan D McGregor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Friday, January 11, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick Motz 
rejected a settlement that would have resolved more than 100 private 
class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in the wake of the 
1999 decision issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the 
trial court phase of the federal antitrust lawsuit.
    Under the proposal's terms, Microsoft would have given 
disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in funding, 
software, services and training, and around 1 million Windows 
licenses for renovated PCs.
    It seems ridiculous that a Federal Judge would reject such a 
settlement. The only people who win in class action suits are 
lawyers. Why not let the public win for a change?
    Duncan D. McGregor
    313 Curtis Road
    Chesterfield, SC 29709



MTC-00012532

From: John Eide
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Enogh already! Its time to end this 
litigation and move on. John Eide-Naples FL



MTC-00012533

From: Wetzl, Tom
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/16/02  7:19am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    As a National Board of Professional Teacher certification 
teacher I strongly support the Microsoft settlement that would put 
computers and software into our classrooms. Our nation's children 
would benefit from the settlement strengthening our future,
    Sincerely,
    Tom Wetzl, NBPT Certified



MTC-00012534

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:26am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please just settle this case. The cost of taking it any further 
will lead to a continued waste of tax payer dollars.
    John Tarbell



MTC-00012535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:26am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I support the Microsoft Settlement that has been reached with 9 
states. Bill Gates and Microsoft should not continue to be punished. 
America has always been about innovation, creativity and 
competition. It is part of our culture and drives everything we do. 
It is time to move forward and renew the pace of technological 
innovation that is driving our economy and enhancing our nation's 
productivity. Technology and productivity enhancements are America's 
only sustainable competitive advantagein a global economy, and it is 
wrong to threaten that for the sake of a few envious Microsoft 
competitors.
    Regards,
    Clark Handy



MTC-00012536

From: Nathan Luppino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    A settlement has been reached which seems to be fair and 
equitable to all involved. Now a few politicians want to enhance 
their political standing by trying to use Microsoft as a 
springboard. Lets move on! Microsoft has been a great company and 
done much for the economy of this country. We need companies like 
Microsoft and less politicians.



MTC-00012537

From: Aaron Batty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft, due to its monopoly status, is able to charge 
exorbitant prices for even its most basic software. Personally, I 
like their software. I like their OS (although they often cut 
corners on security issues); but their pricing doesn't make any 
sense. They are the MOST expensive OS and office software provider, 
despite well over 90% market share. The MacOS is cheaper, and more 
secure, and Apple's office software suite is comparable in 
functionality, but costs considerably less. Linux is free, and more 
secure, and the main office suite for that--StarOffice--is usable 
and ALSO free. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer 
that Microsoft is engaging in price gouging. It's not fair, and it 
hurts competition, hinders the advance of technology (Just look at 
the amazing things happening because of the Intel/AMD competition 
going on right now!), and gives the consumer the short end of the 
stick.
    My suggestion is to force MS to QUICKLY (say, within one year) 
open up ALL APIs of the Windows OS, if not take the OS business away 
from them entirely and make it an open source environment. This way, 
MS could focus on its Office Suite, which, as one who has used other 
OSes and other office suites extensively, I can say is their 
superior product, and would allow third-party competition in this 
field, advancing technology, lowering prices, and making consumers 
much, much happier.
    I don't hate Microsoft. I would fight to squeeze every penny I 
could out of this situation as well, but that doesn't mean that it's 
the right thing for the consumers or for the advancement of 
technology. Both of those concerns should come long before any 
concerns of the profitability of any single company.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Batty



MTC-00012538

From: Jeffrey C. Graber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ: As a concerned citizen, I firmly support the decision of 
the Justice

[[Page 25616]]

Department to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft as it is 
currently written. It is fair to both sides and is in the best 
interest of the country and the business community. Thank you.
    Jeffrey C. Graber



MTC-00012539

From: Anita Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:35am
Subject: Microsoft settelment
    Enough is enough. What is to be gained by dragging this further 
through the courts? If the states truly had the consumer at heart 
they would not continue this unending suit.



MTC-00012540

From: Gil Koedel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Faxed letter to Ashcroft and Santorum.
Gil Koedel
441 Forest Highlands Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
CC:Gil Koedel



MTC-00012541

From: Herb Butterworth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Everyone that I talk to agree that settlement is good for them 
and the American economy, and overwhelmingly want to move beyond 
this litigation. Current news reports gives the appearence that 
certain Government officials are in Apple Computer's pocket.
    I strongly urge the DOJ to settle this issue. The provisions of 
the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, 
and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals ruling.
    George Butterworth
    5531 west hwy 70
    Science Hill, Ky 42553



MTC-00012542

From: Radeke, Donald E.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer programmer, a MS software user, a MS stock owner 
(only 300 shares), and a tax payer. I think other companies often 
provide better software than MS. As a consumer, however, I believe 
MS has provided quality products at a fair price in a highly 
competitive marketplace.
    I also think it unfortunate that our federal government and 
several state governments have spent so much time and money in an 
attempt to extort money from a company with money. Much of what has 
happened in the MS Case has been politically motivated which the 
Clinton administration was only too happy to pursue because MS 
competitors gave generously. And, MS was not a big contributor to 
either political party. But just look at their cash position! MS is 
a lucrative target for the lawyers and others who want to take money 
away from anyone who has it, even though they earned it through hard 
work.
    Stop the litigation nonsense and maybe the business climate will 
change so the US economy will get back on track. When did business 
confidence begin to slide? And when was the first suit against MS 
made?



MTC-00012543

From: Paul Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Introduction
    I write to comment on the proposed settlement between the US 
Department of Justice and Microsoft (the Proposal). I believe that 
the Proposal makes progress in the right direction, but does not go 
far enough.
    I am a British subject, and must therefore beg forgiveness for 
intruding on a case being heard in the United States. However 
Microsoft is a multinational company, and holds a similar market 
position in both the US and Britain. If it is implemented then the 
Proposal will have essentially the same impact on both our 
countries. Finally I note that the European Union is considering its 
own action to curb the Microsoft monopoly, but is awaiting the 
resolution of the US case. I therefore feel that I have a legitimate 
interest in the outcome of this case, and submit my comments 
accordingly.
    I hold a degree in Computing Systems from University College 
Cardiff (now part of the University of Cardiff). I have been a 
practicing computer scientist ever since. I have been following the 
Microsoft case with great interest since it started. Summary 
Microsoft holds a dominant position throughout the software 
industry. A remedy which deals exclusively with ``middleware'' is 
not sufficient. All Microsoft software should be covered. Microsoft 
is a repeat offender and there is no reason to think that this case 
has changed its character, so remedies must be carefully drafted to 
avoid leaving loopholes.
    There should be no restrictions on pricing or product tying. 
Microsoft should be left free to develop and sell its products as it 
sees fit. The only exception to this are the rules which cover OEMs 
ability to include competing products instead of Microsoft ones.
    Microsoft's monopoly position is founded on its control of 
proprietary interfaces. Microsoft products are linked through a 
network of proprietary interfaces, making it difficult for 
competitors to produce software that will inter-operate with 
Microsoft software. If the proprietary interfaces were published 
then competitors could produce software that competed directly with 
Microsoft without the expensive and error-prone process of reverse 
engineering. These proprietary interfaces are in the form of file 
formats, network protocols and APIs. All three need to be made 
available to competing products.
    Where two Microsoft products work together the interface between 
them can best be made available by setting up a ``Chinese wall'' 
between the development groups responsible for them, and then 
requiring Microsoft to publish all the technical data that is 
exchanged between these groups.
    Where one copy of a product communicates with other copies of 
the same product (such as when an MS word document is sent to 
another MS Word user) the file format or communication protocol 
should be published in a form which allows independent verification 
that the product conforms to the published description.
    Special consideration should be taken of Open Source Software 
development over the questions of cost, trade secret status and 
patent licensing. The ``security related'' exception to disclosure 
should be narrowed to include only keys, passwords and similar 
security tokens.

Microsoft's Position

    Microsoft currently holds a dominant position in the computer 
software industry, and as I shall show below it maintains this 
position through control of proprietary interfaces. I believe that a 
fair and effective remedy should destroy the competitive advantage 
that Microsoft gains through its control of interfaces, but still 
allow it to compete and innovate on equal terms with its 
competitors.
    (In the longer term I would suggest that legislation be created 
to require all software companies above a certain size to publish 
the details of their interfaces, and thereby create a truly level 
playing field in the software market. However that is not the 
subject of this note.)
    Over the past decade Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated a 
willingness to evade or ignore regulations aimed at curbing its 
monopoly power. There is no reason to expect this behaviour to 
change. Therefore any effective remedy must be drafted to block not 
only the past misdeeds of Microsoft but any it might devise in the 
future. The rules under which Microsoft is to operate must be 
unambiguous and, as far as possible, free from the need to make 
value judgements as to whether Microsoft has fulfiled its 
obligations sufficiently.

Product Tying

    The current case was originally concerned with the alleged tying 
of Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows 95, in violation of 
anti-trust law. However the list of features which users expect to 
find in an operating system has evolved over time, and continues to 
do so. A previous example concerns ``disk defragmenters'', which 
optimise the arrangement of data on a disk in order to speed up 
access. Before Windows 95 these programs were sold separately by 
competitors to Microsoft. When Windows 95 was released it included a 
disk defragmenter. The competing companies could no longer sell 
their existing products, but there was no public outcry because disk 
defragmentation is generally considered to be a function of the 
operating system. Similarly when Microsoft first bundled Internet 
Explorer with Windows a web browser was considered an application. 
Today most consumers would expect to find it bundled with the 
operating system. Suppose that ten years ago Microsoft had been 
effectively prevented from adding new features to Windows: today a 
modern PC would have to include a dozen or more small packages of 
software that would be more economically produced and sold as a 
single product. Computer vendors would have to purchase and 
integrate all of these small packages, and buyers would have to cope

[[Page 25617]]

with a bewildering checklist of small but important items that they 
would have to ensure their computer included. The variation in 
quality and operation of these packages would present serious 
challenges to the use and maintenance of different PCs. Such a 
situation would not be in the interests of the consumer.
    Thus a fair and effective remedy cannot enjoin Microsoft from 
ever bundling new functionality in its products, even when a market 
for that functionality already exists and is serviced by third party 
products.
    US anti-trust law deals with this point by requiring that 
product tying of this sort be of benefit to consumers, and 
prohibiting predatory pricing. However this principle is of little 
help in the software market:
    The ``benefit to consumers'' test largely fails because if 
Microsoft adds a feature to a package then it saves the consumer the 
trouble of buying and installing extra software to provide that 
feature. Thus a strong argument can always be made in favour of any 
particular feature being added. There is no ``fair'' price for 
software in the sense that there is for physical products (i.e. the 
unit cost plus a reasonable profit) because there is no unit cost. 
The cost of software is entirely in its original development. Left 
to themselves software vendors will set a price which maximises 
their income, but there is no link between this price and the cost 
of development. Any plan to regulate Microsoft by imposing fair 
prices must therefore remove entirely its right to set its own 
prices, and this in turn will require it to negotiate a price for 
software with the regulator before starting development. This is 
highly unlikely to benefit consumers. But if Microsoft is free to 
set prices, even to set them at zero, then it can effectively tie 
products by distributing free add-ons at the point of sale.
    Therefore I must reluctantly conclude that regulating 
Microsoft's ability to tie products is likely to do more harm than 
good, and should not be included in the final remedy. Microsoft 
should be left free to determine what functionality is included in 
each of its products.
    The Proposal also sets rules for the related issue of the 
``Desktop''. This properly prevents Microsoft from ensuring that its 
products are more prominent on the desktop than those of its 
competitors. Such user interface concerns are important, but are not 
the subject of this note.

Interfaces

    The Proposal concentrates on the ``Application Programmer 
Interfaces'' (APIs) to Microsoft ``Middleware'' (a vaguely defined 
term, roughly meaning software that sits between the operating 
system and the applications employed by end users).
    The Proposal is right to concentrate on interfaces. Microsoft 
has always used proprietary interfaces to manipulate the market and 
lock out competition. To illustrate how this works, suppose 
Microsoft sells products Foo and Bar that communicate via a 
proprietary interface. I purchase Foo, and subsequently want the 
added functionality of Bar. There may be many competitors in the 
market for Bar, but they are effectively excluded from my 
consideration because their products cannot communicate with Foo.
    Similarly if copies of Foo communicate with each other through a 
proprietary interface then anyone wishing to work with me must also 
purchase a copy of Foo. This creates a ``network externality'' that 
ensures that even in a competitive market the best option for an 
individual consumer is the product with the largest market share, 
since this brings them into the largest population of potential 
collaborators.
    By creating a web of proprietary interfaces, both between 
products and between its customers, Microsoft has ensured that it is 
locked into its market in a way that has never before been possible. 
It is this stranglehold on the market for software that must be 
broken. Since Microsoft has used its control of proprietary 
interfaces to achieve this, it is on interfaces that any effective 
remedy must concentrate.
    The focus of the Proposal on ``middleware'' is misguided. It 
excludes applications and operating systems, which are the two areas 
where the monopoly power of Microsoft most needs to be restricted. 
Furthermore its vague definition creates too much opportunity for 
Microsoft to redefine critical interfaces as something other than 
``middleware'', leading at best to argument and delay.

Examples

    It is worth looking at two of these interfaces to see how they 
lock Microsoft into the market. Microsoft Office is the leading 
``office productivity suite''. There are competitors, but they are 
critically hampered because their users cannot reliably exchange 
documents with MS Office users. Some degree of inter-operability 
does exist, but this has been enabled by painstaking ``reverse 
engineering'': the competitor can only learn about document formats 
by inspecting the files created by Office and trying to deduce how 
each part of the document is encoded in the file. This process is 
expensive and error-prone, and Microsoft can always introduce new 
features faster than they can be reverse engineered. As a result no 
existing competitor to Office can reliably import a complex 
document. Consumers know this, and therefore avoid these 
competitors. This prevents the competitors from gaining market 
share, no matter how good their products might otherwise be.
    The Kerberos security protocol was developed by MIT and has now 
become an important component of many systems. Microsoft included 
Kerberos support in Windows 2000, but with a small change. Kerberos 
is an ``authentication'' protocol: it guarantees that the parties to 
a transaction are who they say they are. Microsoft added 
authorisation data to the protocol. This meant that Windows 2000 
would only grant access to shared files and printers if the Kerberos 
``ticket'' presented by the user had been issued by a Windows 2000 
server. This appears to have been an attempt to lock competitors 
(including the freely available MIT server) out of the market for 
Kerberos authentication products. In response to a public outcry 
within the computer industry Microsoft first insisted that the 
format of its extra data was a trade secret, and then released the 
format on its web site under a ``click-through'' license under which 
the recipient promised to keep its contents a secret. I will return 
to this strange license later in the section on Open Source 
Software.
    The net effect of this web of proprietary interfaces is to make 
any mix of Microsoft and competing products less functional than a 
pure Microsoft solution. A pure non-Microsoft solution is not 
usually possible, either because Microsoft has driven the 
competition into the ground or because there is a need to 
communicate with others who are using Microsoft. Hence the only 
choice is between a pure Microsoft solution and a mix. In a world 
which is dominated by Microsoft there can only be level competition 
if the interfaces to Microsoft software are equally open to all 
competitors.

Files, Protocols and APIs

    There are three types of interface which an effective remedy 
must address: files, network protocols, and APIs. Files stored on 
disk are an important repository of value for any computer user. The 
ability to read this data and exchange it with others is the most 
important requirement for any new software. Therefore Microsoft 
shoud be required to disclose the file formats for all its software. 
This will enable competitors to create software which reliably works 
with files created by Microsoft software. The main immediate effect 
of this will be to enable competitors of Microsoft Office to compete 
on a level playing field. In the longer term it will prevent 
Microsoft from using the proprietary file format of any popular 
application to gain a monopoly position through market lock-in.
    Similarly, protocols used to communicate over networks should be 
opened up. The Kerberos example above illustrates how even seemingly 
minor proprietary extensions can create strong market lock-in. As 
the Internet becomes increasingly important so the use of 
proprietary protocols will become an important method for Microsoft 
to maintain its monopoly position unless it is stopped.
    APIs are a much more complicated issue than files and protocols. 
For every file format or network protocol used by Microsoft there 
are thousands of ``function calls'', the basic element of APIs. 
Function calls are used both within a single product and between 
products. There is no simple way to distinguish the function calls 
which are made within a product and those made between products 
unless the products in question are designed to work separately as 
well as together. Microsoft has already used this fact to obfuscate 
the question of whether Internet Explorer is intrinsically 
integrated with Windows 95. It can be expected to use this tactic 
again in the future. Since it is not feasible to use product tying 
rules to prevent this (see above), I suggest that Microsoft be 
required to identify every API which is used to communicate between 
software in two different products, and disclose that API in full. 
The smallest unit of ``API'' to be disclosed should be the ``DLL'' 
(Dynamically Linked library). In Windows a DLL is a single file 
which provides collection of functions to other software. Making 
DLLs atomic for disclosure purposes will encourage Microsoft to keep 
the APIs for communication between products distinct from the APIs 
within

[[Page 25618]]

products, thereby reducing the work required by competitors who wish 
to offer competing products which offer the same APIs.

Disclosure Mechanisms

Detail

    The Proposal has nothing to say about what level of detail will 
be included in the interface descriptions. This issue is not 
trivial.
    For programmers, the ultimate description of what a function 
within an API does is the source code which implements that 
function, which leads programmers to say ``use the Source, Luke'' 
when faced with a detailed technical query about a piece of sotware. 
However the inspection of source code is not always practical, 
either because the code in question is proprietary (as in this 
case{time} , or just because it would take too long to understand. 
Hence developers routinely produce documentation which describes the 
functions in an API in a more readable form.
    The Proposal seems to envisage this kind of documentation being 
made publicly available. However there does not appear to be any 
incentive to Microsoft to make this documentation complete or 
accurate, other than enforcement by the courts. Since this kind of 
document can never be 100% complete or accurate the question will 
arise as to whether it is good enough. If Microsoft acts true to 
form it will inevitably argue that its documentation is indeed good 
enough even though it is not, and will carry on arguing this until 
it becomes a moot point. To avoid this problem I suggest that 
Microsoft be required to erect ``Chinese walls'' between the 
development groups working on different products. Only published 
documentation may be exchanged between these groups. Hence if 
Microsoft wishes to sell two products which work together it can 
only do so if it also informs its competitors how to make products 
which will can work just as effectively.
    The remaining problem on detail is the file formats and 
protocols used when one copy of a product communicates with other 
copies of the same product. The Chinese wall system will not work 
here. However since this problem is restricted to file formats and 
protocols the problem of ensuring the adequacy of documentation is 
much smaller.
    Established techniques (such as BNF grammars and state machines) 
can completely describe file formats and protocols, and these can be 
used as the basis of an unarguable technical finding that either the 
software or the documentation is defective. This is not a complete 
solution to the problem, but it should level the playing field 
sufficiently to allow competition.

Publication and Open Source

    Since this case started Open Source Software (OSS), such as the 
Linux operating system, has become a significant competitor to 
Microsoft. Therefore any effective remedy must take account of the 
special requirements of OSS development over normal commercial 
software development.
    The primary issues here are costs, trade secrets, and patents.
    Costs:
    Whatever disclosure mechanism is chosen for interface 
descriptions, it must be within the financial reach of open source 
developers. A subscription of several hundred dollars a year, such 
as is required for the Microsoft Developer Network, is trivial for a 
competing software company but a major hurdle for a volunteer 
developer working on OSS. Given that interface descriptions must be 
prepared for competitors, there is no reason why they should not be 
distributed for free over the web rather than only made available to 
an exclusive club.

Trade Secrets

    Microsoft must not be allowed to pretend that these interface 
descriptions are trade secrets, as it tried to do with its extension 
to Kerberos. Because OSS packages include the full source code they 
inevitabley reveal the full details of their operation to any 
programmer who downloads them. If Microsoft can claim trade secret 
status on an interface it can effectively block any OSS package from 
using that interface, since to do so would reveal the ``secret'' of 
its operation. This appears to have been the objective of the click-
through license on the Kerberos extensions (see above). The 
``Samba'' project (www.samba.org) has reverse-engineered the 
Microsoft file and printer sharing protocols, allowing non-Microsoft 
systems to gain access to resources on Microsoft systems. An updated 
version of Samba for Windows 2000 is being prepared which will need 
to inter-operate with the Windows 2000 Kerberos extensions. If these 
extensions are considered trade secrets then it would be impossible 
for the Samba project to work with these extensions, and a key 
component in any mix of Microsoft and non-Microsoft computers would 
be crippled.

Patents

    Microsoft has not made much use of patents to protect its 
market, prefering to rely on proprietary interfaces. However if it 
is prevented from using proprietary interfaces it may decide to use 
patented ones instead.
    When Microsoft next introduces a new interface, especially a 
network protocol, it would be a simple matter to obtain a patent 
covering the operation of that interface. At that point any 
competitor wishing to inter-operate with Microsoft products using 
that interface would have to license it from Microsoft. The usual 
solution in such situations is to require licenses on ``Reasonable 
And Non-Discriminatory'' (RAND) terms. However even RAND terms 
require payment. OSS developers are unable to offer payment. 
Therefore an effective remedy must require Microsoft to license its 
patents on RAND terms to commercial software vendors and on Royalty 
Free terms to Open Source projects.
    Incidentally, Microsoft has described OSS as ``un-American'' and 
``an intellectual property destroyer''. These descriptions try to 
tar OSS developers with the same brush as software pirates. This is 
incorrect. Software pirates selfishly take the work of others and 
use it without paying. OSS developers take their own work and permit 
others to use it for free. This is a wholly generous act, fully in 
keeping with the American ideals of volunteerism and service to 
one's community.

Security Details

    The Proposal includes a broad exception for ``security related'' 
information. However Microsoft could argue that almost any 
interface, especially APIs and communication protocols, is 
``security related'' if it is used to carry any kind of 
authorisation or authentication information. Indeed, it made exactly 
this argument when it initally refused to reveal its extensions to 
Kerberos. Therefore the exception for security related information 
must be narrowly drawn. Fortunately this is not a major problem. It 
is a basic principle of computer security that would-be intruders 
will eventually learn the operational details of your security 
mechanism, either by reverse engineering or by other less legitmate 
means. Any security which depends on the intruders remaining 
ignorant of these details is known as ``security through 
obscurity'', and regarded by security practitioners as inadequate at 
best. Therefore the only items which should need to be kept secure 
are the keys or passwords which operate the software. These can be 
easily changed if they are compromised. Hence if security interfaces 
are well designed then they will not need to be kept secret. And if 
they are not well designed then Microsoft should be required to 
remedy the fault rather than keep this fact secret.

Conclusion

    The proposed Settlement would have little effect upon the 
business practices of Microsoft. If adopted in its current form them 
the result will be no change to the behaviour of Microsoft, and yet 
another prolonged court case in another five or ten years. Any 
effective settlement must concentrate on opening up the markets that 
Microsoft has effectively closed by its use of proprietary 
interfaces, file formats and protocols.
    I hereby respectfully submit these comments for your 
consideration,
    Paul Johnson.



MTC-00012544

From: Wayne Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement proposed by the DoJ is satisfactory to 
proceed on. The nine states that are against said settlement are 
backed by and supported by the competition of Microsoft, especially 
in California.
    This competition seems to want the DoJ to hand them Microsoft 
Rights that competitively they were unable to do themselves in a 
business manner. The latest proposals by Microsoft and the DoJ are 
adequate and should be approved as is.
    Wayne W. Wood
    [email protected]



MTC-00012545

From: Michael Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the DoJ should drop the settlement and get on with more 
important things. don't understand why the DOJ sued MS in the first 
place . So what if they gave their own--or strategic business 
partners'--products

[[Page 25619]]

preferential treatment on the user interface. Every OS manufacturer 
does-- look at any Apple or LINUX commercial product and you will 
see the same thing. In case you missed it, MS licenses a lot of the 
software applications it ``bundles'' with Windows--and so does 
Netscape and AOL-Time Warner when you get their products. What makes 
MS so different?
    I used to use Netscape's browser exclusively. It was a great 
interface, and beat the heck out of MS's Internet Explorer 2 and 3. 
But, Netscape sat on their butts and MS improved IE's interface. 
When version 4 of IE came out, I switched over and have never gone 
back Netscape radically changed their user interface and it 
backfired on them. They lost market share and IE went to the front. 
Not because MS did anything illegal--Netscape simply screwed up. 
Their ``new'' interface was so bad, they pulled the product shortly 
after it was released and went back to redesign it If Netscape had 
kept improving their original product, they would still have market 
share--but they didn't.
    Now they want the government to step in and fix a business 
problem they caused themselves. To prove my point that even they 
know the screwed up--the latest version of Netscape offers users the 
choice of their ``new'' or their ``classic'' interface. Crappy 
software products die of their own volition--they don't need a stake 
driven through their hearts by MS--and legislation won't make people 
buy them, either. .
    As for being ``forced'' to use MS products--any high school 
student can tell you how to either uninstall a MS product or install 
someone else's software on a Windows machine. (How do you think all 
these violent games they are playing get on the computers in the 
first place? g>) I think of MS as the Wal-Mart of the industry, They 
offer a wide variety of products that work well--but there are other 
products that do certain jobs better out there. Like getting 
appliances from Sears, or a suit from Armani.
    That's why I use Roxio CD Creator to make CDs and not the 
software MS provides. That' s why I use several third party 
diagnostic tools and not the ones that come with Windows. It's like 
choosing to have my car customized after I buy it--no one forces me 
to leave it the way it was when I bought it if I don't want to, I 
can add fog lights, or fuzzy dice, a neon license plate holder, or 
even have it repainted if I chose to.
    (Personally, I think the DoJ should look at Congress and the 
motives of Orrin Hatch, the senator from Utah and home state of MS's 
chief networking rival NetWare--strategic partner of SUN operating 
system and AOL-Time Warner--and see if their was any conspiracy to 
attack MS amongst them. .)
    Mike Taylor



MTC-00012546

From: Tony Dye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:14am
Subject: Continue to litigate the MS Antitrust deal
    I'm an American citizen living in Ireland, and for the record, I 
want to publicly request that you continue to litigate the MS case, 
rather than settle under the current terms of the settlement. I feel 
those terms do absolutely nothing to remove the specter of Microsoft 
as a monopoly force in the industry.
    Tony Dye



MTC-00012547

From: Gail Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We feel that it is time to settle this dispute, it has gone on 
long enough. It seems that this agreement is fair and just to both 
sides. Let's get on with life and move on to other items of 
business. Surely there are other things that need to be considered.
    Gail and Major Bell



MTC-00012548

From: Georgia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I REALLY THINK THIS IS THE MOST STUPID LAWSUIT THERE IS. FREE 
ENTERPRISE IS WHAT WE WERE BUILT ON. IF SOMEONE CANNOT GET OUT THE 
PRODUCT IT DOESN'T MAKE THE FIRST ONE WRONG. IF I HAD A BETTER 
PRODUCT TOO BAD FOR THE NEXT GUY. DROP ALL LITIGATION ON THIS 
PROBLEM WITH MICROSOFT. AMERICA WAS BUILT ON FREE ENTERPRISE.
    GEORGIA WILLARD



MTC-00012549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to put this case to rest. Why does everyone want to 
always pick on the big and successful? Our society encourages us to 
be successful and then when we are everyone complains, especially 
the ones not smart enough to make it on their own.
    This case is nothing but a bunch of spoiled brates who can't 
stand losing to Bill Gates, they don't like him. They need to spend 
their energy worrying about their companies, not Microsoft.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012550

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At this point I feel it is unnecessary to further pursue 
litigation against Microsoft. Why penalize a company further when 
there are clearly other alternatives out there for all of their 
products. And why inhibit a company from integrating their products. 
I don't care if my computer comes with Internet Explorer on it, 
because I know I can just as easily install Netscape or any other 
browser to access the internet. At this point further litigation is 
a waste of taxpayer's money and there will be no economic gain by 
pursuing further action.
    Kevin Richman
    Michigan



MTC-00012551

From: GrannyD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:35am
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.
    Janet F. Dasaro



MTC-00012552

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    T.W.I.M.C.
    Whatever happened to the free enterprise system? Look what 
happened after the breakup of T.P.C.? (The phone company.)
    Just because any company with a superior product has certain 
restrictions doesn't mean that it is wrong. Do all the different 
automobile parts fit into competitors vehicles? Has GM been forced 
to make their parts compatible with Ford?
    The only place in the world this is necessary in the world isn't 
in the world. It is on the ISS since everything must fit everything 
else.
    David A. Abbey
    4964 Hollywood Road
    St. Joseph, MI 49085-9339



MTC-00012553

From: Bobjmiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:44am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please settle this WITHOUT any more litigation. It is quite 
obvious that the states smell money and will do anything to get some 
of it, even attacking business which is the backbone of this 
republic. Those attacking business especially those that are 
successful are the enemy within. Please settle this and get on with 
following the ten commandments.
    Thank You
    Robert J. Miles

[[Page 25620]]



MTC-00012554

From: David E Provencher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
95 Morningside Drive
Newport Center, VT 05857-9428
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am a proponent of free enterprise and I believe that under the 
terms of the recent antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the 
U.S. department of Justice, Microsoft has not gotten off easy. In 
fact, their rights are being violated in some ways. Nevertheless, I 
support the settlement because I think that all parties involved 
will be better off without further litigation.
    First off, Microsoft is being restricted from entering into 
third party agreements pertaining to exclusive distribution. This 
term is ridiculous and biased. Most companies, including some like 
Coca-Cola, rely on these types of agreements to gain and maintain 
market share. To restrict companies from this form of business is to 
hinder their chances for survival. Second, Microsoft will be forced 
to give up technological codes and data, which will allow 
competitors to configure and create products that, can be prompted 
within Windows or are compatible with Windows software. This term 
alone constitutes a violation of Microsoft's intellectual property 
rights.
    I urge your office to finalize this settlement and look out for 
the American public. I hope the terms of settlement ultimately turn 
out to be in best interest of the American IT sector and American 
public. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    David Provencher



MTC-00012555

From: Jeff Finkelstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:46am
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 competitive position; Microsoft must 
convince consumers that it's product at $$$ dollars is better then 
it's competitor (Linux) at the cost of $0 (zero). How can Microsoft 
be considered a monopoly when it has this level of competition? Will 
the government be satisfied when a Chinese version of Linux 
dominates the desktop and tax revenues and jobs from high-tech 
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 undermine 
the free market and hard work of millions of American who invest in 
Microsoft and other great companies.
    Regards,
    Jeff Finkelstein
    1015 Woodsman Ct.
    Charlotte, NC 28213



MTC-00012556

From: C. Porter Claxton, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The government has gotten a fair settlement on the Microsoft 
case, and it's time to quit spending tax dollars and let it be. 
Pressure should be placed on the states to go along with the 
settlement. Our economy is suffering enough, it's time to let 
microsoft get back to work, doing what it does best.
    Sincerely,
    C. Porter Claxton, Jr.



MTC-00012557

From: Steve Fix
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have never viewed this case as needed or worth the tax payer's 
money but driven more for political purposes. As a consumer I have 
only benefited by the structure of the PC industry in general and 
Microsoft's role specifically. I believe the court should move 
quickly to resolve this issue and make the settlement reached with 
the federal government binding on ALL states. I don't understand 
what standing individual states have in a case such as this and 
believe courts have allowed this to go on too long.
    Thanks.



MTC-00012558

From: Dorothy MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft
    To whom it may concern.
    It is time the law suit against Microsoft are resolved. It is a 
shame that the courts have become involved with the politics of 
Goverment. Enough allready. Settle the cas and let the world get on 
with more imporant problems.
    Dorothy MacDonald



MTC-00012559

From: Terry Fuller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    Please see the attached letter in support of Microsoft in its 
antitrust dispute. I strongly believe that the most noteworthy 
aspect of this settlement is that it allows Microsoft to remain 
together and to continue devoting its resources to designing 
innovative software, which will benefit the economy, the industry, 
and consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Terry A. Fuller,
    Ph.D. Pennsylvania

Terry Fuller, Ph.D.
944 Morgan Rd
Rydal, PA 19046
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute, 
and I feel that the settlement that was reached back in November is 
fair and thorough. I am relieved that this issue has been resolved, 
and I feel this settlement serves the best public interest.
    Under this agreement, Microsoft has agreed to share more 
information about Microsoft software codes and books. Microsoft has 
also agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it easier 
to install non-Microsoft software. These provisions, along with many 
others, make it easier for competing companies to conduct business.
    The most noteworthy aspect of this settlement is that it allows 
Microsoft to remain together and finally devote its resources to 
designing innovative software, which will benefit the economy, the 
industry, and consumers. Thank you for settling with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Terry Fuller, Ph.D.
    Cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00012560

From: Anthony Verguldi Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Verguldi Jr
420 Dartmoor Road
Schwenksville, PA 19473-1865
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support Microsoft and believe this 
settlement will benefit the public and economy.
    This settlement is complete. Microsoft has agreed to furnish 
more information to companies that are trying to compete. For 
instance, Microsoft has agreed to disclose for use by its 
competitors various internal interfaces, as well as 
``interoperability protocols.'' In this way, Microsoft has agreed to 
terms that go way beyond the original issues of the lawsuit.
    I believe this settlement will benefit the economy and industry. 
Please support this settlement.
    Thank you for your time.

[[Page 25621]]

    Sincerely,
    Anthony Verguldi Jr
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012561

From: joanpeterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in the best interest of our country and our economy to put 
this case behind us and let Microsoft go about the business of 
innovating! We have lost precious time since Microsoft has been 
inbroiled in this mess. We should reward intellegence, not punish 
it!



MTC-00012562

From: joanpeterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone!



MTC-00012563

From: Keith J. Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To US DoJ:
    I beleive that Microsoft is a leader and innovator in developing 
innovative and useful software for the general public. I don't 
believe that it is in the Government's best interest to drag this 
case out. I strongly feel that many of the State's objections to the 
Microsoft is disingenuous at best and specious in fact. I remember 
seeing a Oprah Winfrey program that featured Larry Ellison of Oracle 
wherein he stated that he would donate I believe some 10 million 
dollars in software to the school system. I don't believe there was 
any outcry from Apple or anyone else! Microsoft does much to help 
individuals develop software much like IBM did at one time. I hope 
that the US Government and the States can come to a resolution soon 
for the sake of the economy.
    K. Lewis
    CC:Keith John Lewis



MTC-00012564

From: Dr. Michael J. Kraut
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust suit is fair 
and reasonable. It is time to move on; I urge you to close this 
case.
    Michael J. Kraut, M.D.
    Associate Professor of Medicine
    Wayne State University



MTC-00012565

From: David Oakes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suite
    Dear Dept. of Justice,
    Please go on to more important matters and leave Microsoft 
alone. They have done nothing but create wealth and jobs for 
Americans.
    David Oakes



MTC-00012566

From: Judyth K. Sweet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
23720 Brownstown Square Drive
Apt. #103
Brownstown Twp, MI 48174-9387
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Though not a regular computer user, as an American who believes 
in the importance of the entrepreneurial spirit, I would like to 
voice my opinion on the stance the Justice Department needs to take 
on the upcoming settlement decision with Microsoft. I believe to 
take a truly great American company that started from ground zero 
and earned its way to the top, then break it up or infringe on its 
right to do business is not in the spirit of fair competition that 
so many claim to support. Now that Microsoft has offered a 
settlement, its time to put this behind us.
    The current proposal sounds very fair. From what I've read, 
Microsoft will standardize pricing for its customers, not act 
against any customer that uses competing software and will even 
allow other companies to access and license its internal 
intellectual property. The company has then agreed to a technical 
committee of software experts to oversee Microsoft's continued 
compliance of the deal. So, it seems like any concerns from before 
the lawsuit are being met and the Big Brother approach by the 
government needs to stop immediately.
    Please accept the terms of this settlement and allow Microsoft 
to focus on creating jobs again, which the country needs most right 
now. I thank you for your attention to my feedback.
    With sincere regards for American enterprise,
    Judyth Sweet



MTC-00012567

From: Mardi Bergen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:22am
Subject: anti-trust
    Please settle ASAP so we can all get on with this creative work. 
Thank you,
    M. Bergen



MTC-00012568

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:24am
Subject: Antitrust Case
    We support settlement of the Microsoft in the antitrust case. 
The government and Microsoft have already expended too many funds on 
this litigation. As usual, the real winners are the lawyers. In the 
end, the consumer will lose anyway thanks to all the tax dollars 
spent on the litigation. The current settlement sounds like a good 
deal to the states. Why don't we accept it and move on?



MTC-00012569

From: Paul Greatbatch
To: Microsoft ATR,Steve Ainger,Reid Miller,Ram Angia,C. . . 
Date: 1/16/02  9:26am
Subject: Lord of the Rings--sort of
    Recently one of my friends, a computer wizard, paid me a visit. 
As we were talking I mentioned that I had recently installed Windows 
XP on my PC. I told him how happy I was with this operating system 
and showed him the Windows XP CD. To my surprise he threw it into my 
microwave oven and turned it on.
    Instantly I got very upset, because the CD had become precious 
to me, but he said: 'Do not worry, it is unharmed. After a few 
minutes he took the CD out, gave it to me and said: 'Take a close 
look at it.' To my surprise the CD was quite cold to hold and it 
seemed to be heavier than before. At first I could not see anything, 
but on the inner edge of the central hole I saw an inscription, an 
inscription finer than anything I had ever seen before. The 
inscription shone piercingly bright, and yet remote, as if out of a 
great depth:
    I cannot understand the fiery letters,' I said in a timid voice. 
'No but I can,' he said. 'The letters are Hex, of an ancient mode, 
but the language is that of Microsoft, which I shall not utter here. 
But in common English this is what it says:
    One OS to rule them all,
    One OS to find them,
    One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
    It is only two lines from a verse long known in System lore:
    ``Three OS's from corporate kings in their towers of glass,
    Seven from valley lords where orchards used to grow,
    Nine from dotcoms doomed to die,
    One from the Dark Lord Gates on his dark throne In the Land of 
Redmond where the Shadows lie
    One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them,
    One OS to bring them al and in the darkness bind them,
    In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.''
    It WANTS to be installed
    Best Regards,
    Paul



MTC-00012570

From: Becky Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I believe that the government's settlement with Microsoft has 
been done fairly and appropriately. I would like to see all other 
litigations discontinued. I believe that this would be the best 
route for consumers, our country and our educational systems.
    Thank you.
    Cordially,
    Becky Jennings



MTC-00012571

From: Merrick, Carl
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft
    The Microsoft Marketing Machine is still up to their old tricks 
with their new products even after being told to cease and desist. I 
am

[[Page 25622]]

actively involved with a deployment of their newest operating 
system, Windows XP, and it's still the same old issues. MSN 
Messenger is installed by default and the uninstall is hidden. 
Obscure file edits are necessary to complete the uninstall. MSN is 
still the default in Internet Explorer 6, all search functions point 
to MSN. MSN Explorer is installed by default to the desktop. The OS 
reports back to Microsoft by default. Many hours were spent 
uninstalling this unneeded software. The OS should be the OS, not a 
device to market other products. I think if Microsoft stayed with 
this philosophy they would have a far superior product, now it is 
just a mediocre marketing platform.
    Carl Merrick
    Network Administrator
    Town of Enfield



MTC-00012572

From: Lee Robie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
enclosed opinion on Microsoft Case.
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
6084 Hallies Hollow Lane
Loveland, OH 45140-8616
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express support for the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department in their ongoing 
antitrust case. I feel the settlement is fair, and no further action 
should be taken against Microsoft.
    I work in the software industry as a developer, and I have seen 
firsthand the innovation Microsoft has provided the marketplace. It 
should not be punished as the settlement does by forcing Microsoft 
to disclose its technological secrets to competitors. Ending the 
case as soon as possible will allow Microsoft to return to 
developing new products and technologies that will ultimately 
benefit many consumers.
    I strongly urge you to stop all further inquiry into the case, 
and support the settlement. It is time to put this matter behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Lee Robie



MTC-00012573

From: Augenstein, Rob
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:00am
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 
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/>
    800-385-2511
    770-512-8990, extension 1015
    770-512-8991 fax



MTC-00012574

From: Ed Delaney
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:06am
Subject: Paper submissions
    Does the Dept. need help scanning all the comment letters for 
the Microsoft case? We are a federal government GSA small business 
contractor in Rockville and we can scan and index these documents 
for you.
    Edward Delaney
    Vice President
    Ideal Systems
    301-468-0123



MTC-00012575

From: Clark Kilhefner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments--Microsoft Proposed Settlement
    It's time to move on! From the outset this has been an exercise 
in establishing the rules after the game has been played--or at the 
very least after the game has been in progress for some time.
    Does the proposed settlement benefit consumers? Since the 
injured parties, judging from who is making the most noise, are 
Microsoft's competitors there's no way to know. Consumers have never 
had a voice in the process. I've neither read nor heard any facts 
supporting the contention that consumers (you and I) have been 
injured. Are the high tech competitors bringing the complaint 
satisfied? Is that important? Apparently the settlement is a fairly 
good one in that almost every faction is unhappy with it. Microsoft 
is willing to live with the proposed settlement, the United States 
(at least most of the Washington DC types involved) has accepted it, 
consumers have never said they weren't satisfied, and Microsoft's 
competitors will likely never be satsified until MSFT is delisted. 
In short, there's everyone is equally displeased and there's no 
place to go from this point but down.
    You've done your jobs. Let's move on!
    Clark H. Kilhefner
    P.O. Box 888
    Tualatin, OR 97062



MTC-00012576

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You prosecute Microsoft, but you let banks merge, oil companies 
merge, corporate takeovers, make us dependent on foreign oil. 
Microsoft gave the consumer something that if it did not satisfy 
them they could replace with another product, and it was included in 
the purchase price. We are at the mercy of the big banks, big oil, 
and corporations that you have given the OK to move most of our 
manufacturing jobs out of the country. Whose side are you on? Is it 
the governments porpoise to bring our standard of living to that of 
a third world country?
    If someone builds a better product the public will buy it. It's 
not like Microsoft made a product that cold not be replaced if it 
was unsatisfactory.
    Mike Piche
    Elgin,Il.



MTC-00012577

From: Helen Guiltinan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:11am
Subject: Settlement
    Settle Now, this sounds like History and Howard Hughes. This 
settlement needs to be resolved. NOW ! Our economy is already in the 
toilet and the government has its hand on the handle.
    Let's move on with the governments handling or mishandling of 
the ENRON crisis. Get a grip on priorities.
    Helen Guiltinan



MTC-00012578

From: Jack Otto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:10am
Subject: Gentlemen:
    Gentlemen:
    It is my desire that you pursue no more activity against 
MicroSoft. thanks.
    John F.Otto



MTC-00012579

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

[[Page 25623]]

Date: 1/16/02  10:11am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I just wanted to vent about what is happening with the MicroSoft 
Settlement. MicroSoft started from nothing and is solely responsible 
for the PC revolution and a good deal of the other technological 
advancements we know and enjoy today. It is unfair for this country 
to penalize success. I think it is great that finally a U.S. company 
is a world leader and is able to compete with other corporations 
around the world especially when so many of them are subsidized by 
their governmants. Please stop playing politics and look at all the 
good that the company does. Bill Gates donates a lot to charities, 
pays more than his share in personnel and corporate taxes and 
provides a lot of jobs. I was disgusted and embarassed to be an 
American under Clinton but have regained my pride and patriotism 
under President Bush. Please do the correct and honorable thing and 
put this endless litigation to rest. The only people that win are 
the lawyers.
    Thank you,
    Bill Klueber



MTC-00012581

From: Joel and Lynne Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been using computers ever since my first Commodore 64. I 
have used every generation of PC and just about every type of 
commercial software available. I fully believe the standardization 
that Microsoft has brought to PC use has benefited consumers more 
than any of us can imagine. I also believe their software is 
competitively priced and has always been a good value. Otherwise I 
wouldn't buy it, and I certainly wouldn't upgrade. Having said that, 
I am outraged that our government continues to use taxpayer dollars 
to prosecute a healthy, innovative, American company; not to benefit 
consumers, but to benefit Microsoft's competitors. To say that a 
$100 price tag for an XP upgrade is `to much' and is `monopoly 
driven' seems to me outrageous when I have to shell out $60 for Palm 
OS applications that does relatively nothing.
    The current proposed settlement is fair to consumers and is fair 
to Microsoft. It allows Microsoft the ability to continue making 
better products but does not allow them to strong-arm OEM's. Any 
State not buying into it is simply trying to use the courts to gain 
a competitive advantage for their Companies. If Microsoft's 
competitors were to put as much effort into developing better 
products as they do lobbying maybe they could compete.
    Stop wasting my tax dollars. Settle now.
    Joel and Lynne Thomas
    Easton, WA 98925



MTC-00012582

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft SEttlement
    I think it is insane to not allow Microsoft to donate software 
and possibly computers to the schools. Wherever students go, 
Microsoft is the leader in business and they need to learn it. You 
are depriving them of this fantastic opportunity. If you objective 
is to benefit consumers then this is an option. Apple Computers are 
a personal choice for households but business uses Microsoft. There 
is no benefit to students to be taught on Apples and then to into 
the marketplace and not have the knowledge of Microsoft.
    Please reconsider this case on these merits.
    Thank you.
    Barbara V. Rebard, Redding Calif.



MTC-00012584

From: gbradshaw@ mail.newnanutilities.org@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Support
    I am writing to strongly support settlement of the Microsoft 
case as soon as possible and avoidance of further litigation. My 
reasons are that it is hurting the economic recovery of this Nation 
and is contributing to lower tech stock prices and lower value of 
Microsoft's stock.
    George Bradshaw
    Newnan, Georgia



MTC-00012585

From: GLENN R FARRAR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I have followed this case since it's inception and think it is 
high time that this matter be resolved. I think the settlement 
proposed is fair and just and should be accepted as such.
    I am a retired Navy Pilot who has been involved in the 
scientific field for close to 50 years.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn R. Farrar



MTC-00012586

From: Ron Brown
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:20am
Subject: Comments from Citizens
    I think the government (DoJ) is doing an injustice to the 
country with this continued suit against Microsoft. It could have 
been done differently without the negative impact on our economy and 
the mind set of the citizenry. All this started in clinton's anti-
business administration and now there is so much egg on politicians 
faces that they cannot let it go. And of course there is so much 
politics interwoven in this that it is hard to tell fact from 
fiction and when politics are involved, politicians don't really 
care so much about fact. That is why politicians are respected by 
the citizenry either just above or just below used car salesmen, I 
forget. (It used to be an honorable profession.)
    For example, Microsoft proposal for free computers to schools 
was rejected. That is OK but the reason was crap. When I worked in 
the school district, we received many, many computers from Apple 
that were free. Now they yell foul because they don't want MS 
muscling in on getting the kids used to PCs when they have invested 
years in getting them Apple oriented. When older, these kids will 
buy Apple computers because of their greater familiarity. Yup, 
double standard.
    This case did not cause the market to go into the tank several 
years ago but I feel it certainly helped with the mindset of the 
consumer and investor against the market as a whole. You can thank 
yourself for that. Could have been handled much differently but 
politicians have egos and constituents with lots of campaign money 
in the campaign fund, so we all must wade through this crap for the 
egos of a few. I am sick of it. As a consumer of computer products 
and software, I don't feel infringed nor hurt by Microsoft software 
but I do feel infringed by the government's handling of this case.
    So get a life and dump this case. Get the positive mindset of 
the consumer and investor back on track and let's get this economy 
moving again. You guys, and state governments, need the tax money a 
prospering economy generates. And this crap has lost you billions; 
billions. Was it really worth it? Just for the political egos 
involved? Hell no, not from my perspective nor the from that of the 
citizenry.
    Ron Brown
    6929 Lake Washington Blvd SE.,
    Newcastle, WA 98056
    (Does not reflect the attitude of my employer.)



MTC-00012587

From: Gregg, Randall
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the currently proposed Microsoft Settlement. 
Its time to put Microsoft back to work on the next generation of 
products.



MTC-00012588

From: Anthony Shipman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [I sent this before but did not have the correct subject line.]
    A penalty is not a penalty unless it stings. The current 
proposed ``penalty'' does not sting Microsoft. The simple fact that 
they are saying positive things about it, calling it ``fair'', shows 
that.
    A real penalty that would be of great benefit to the computer-
using public would be to require that control over the Microsoft 
Office file formats be transfered to a public standards body such as 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This would 
include, at least, the formats for Microsoft Word documents, Excel 
spreadsheets and Powerpoint presentations.
    This would make it possible for a variety of software companies 
to develop office software that interoperated with Microsoft 
products. The goal is that an ANSI-conforming document produced by 
vendor X software would be guaranteed to be readable by vendor Y's 
software. Since it is a common practice to e-mail documents, spread-
sheets etc. from person to person and business to business one would 
expect that the formats should be standardised and that the 
standardisation process be impartial.
    As well as revitalising the software industry this remedy would 
also go a long

[[Page 25624]]

way to solving the problem of archived documents. It is well 
recognised by historians and librarians that much of the documentary 
material in an electronic format produced by today's society is 
ephemeral and will not be available to historians of the future. 
This is not only because physical formats such as magnetic tape 
become obsolete but also because the file formats become obsolete. 
Even now, if you have a Word document from 10 years ago you will 
have great difficulty in reading it as current versions of Word do 
not recognise formats that old.
    You will have to hunt around for a software product that can 
convert it to a newer format. This problem will continue to get 
worse in the future. In short, since office file formats have become 
an integral part of the information infrastructure that the public 
depends on in this day and age it is important that they be under 
impartial, public control rather than be subject to the whim of 
Microsoft's marketing department.
    I believe that this would be the biggest step that could be 
taken to level the playing field for business software.
    Anthony Shipman
    Elektrichore--The muse of
    [email protected] high technology.



MTC-00012589

From: Robert Ausborn
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/16/02  10:35am
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft Settlement]
    Please let Microsoft settle whatever and move on with their 
business, and be left alone.
    Thank You,
    Nellie Ausborn



MTC-00012590

From: Davidson, Tom
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I know you guys are trying to figure out what's best for 
everyone in this case, and I think a clear solution--given that 
Microsoft is an unrepentant repeat offender and an obvious 
monopolist--would be to simply require that Microsoft document and 
standardize all its APIs. It would be allowed to create new ones, of 
course, provided it also documented and standardized all of THOSE.
    This doesn't remedy the problem of bundling, of course, but does 
make it easier for competitors to at least challenge Microsoft on a 
more level playing field without having to force consumers into 
abandoning their existing infrastructure.
    Tom



MTC-00012591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Legislators,
    You will never arrive at a common decision acceptable to all 
parties. The American people supported the last settlement, but it 
was recently rejected by U.S. District Judge Motz. Microsoft would 
have given disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in 
funding, software, services and training, and approximately 1 
million Windows licenses for renovated PC's. Enact this settlement 
as supported by the majority of the American people. You will find 
no better way than to assist disadvantaged youth in uplifting and 
enhancing their education!!!
    Government and the justice system have had more than their fair 
share of time and opportunity to arrive at a settlement. The 
American taxpayers are done footing the bill for this ongoing 
affair. It's truly unfortunate that our country can unite when it's 
attacked, but we can't work out an internal conflict. We just drag 
it out a few more years until the related technnology we're trying 
to incriminate is itself already obsolete. Give our economy and our 
people some respect, enact the previous settlement.
    William F. Koranda



MTC-00012592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Briefly, I feel Microsoft is getting off far too easy for its 
blatantly anti-competitive behavior. Specifically, I am concerned 
that, by allowing Microsoft to continue as one company, it will 
continue to shut out competing products and services. Although I 
appreciate that punishing OEMs for choosing non-Microsoft products 
is now ``prohibited behavior'', it is too late for many companies to 
recover from being squeezed out of the market. I can see how this 
behavior will continue as it costs Microsoft next to nothing to 
replicate a software product once it has been created. As such, 
Microsoft (because of its monopolistic size) can afford to give away 
any new product it desires by bundling it with the operating system. 
This will effectively prevent any smaller competitors from entering 
that product space. Once the Microsoft product is in wide use by the 
consumers, Microsoft can begin charging money for it, or for an 
upgraded version of it, and most consumers will pay because they are 
loathe to switch from a tool to which they have grown accustomed.
    The only effective remedy I can see is to force a separation of 
the Microsoft operating system business from the products and 
services businesses. While this may not help products or companies 
that have already been pushed out of the market, it, along with the 
defined prohibited behavior, will help level the playing field for 
emerging companies, products, and technologies.
    Derek Warnick
    5599 Whitewood Dr.
    Taylorsville, UT. 84118
    ([email protected])



MTC-00012593

From: john cuth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please proceed with the Microsoft settlement as proposed. 
Americans, especially our technology companies, need to move forward 
in these troubled times.
    Thank you,
    John Cuth



MTC-00012594

From: Murray, Joe--Pol Affairs Dir
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  10:46am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Settlement
----Original Message----
From: Murray, Joe--Pol Affairs Dir Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2002 
9:39 AM
To: `[email protected]'
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata Hesse
From: Joe Murray
2753 Milwaukee St.
Madison, WI 53704
    Atty. Hesse:
    I wanted to take this opportunity to encourage you to support 
the Microsoft settlement. I was told you are the person to talk to, 
so allow me to make a couple points regarding this issue.
    First, this case has gone on long enough. Just like the other 
legal wars that play out in DC, this one has overstayed it's 
welcome. Once you can get to the point where some form of agreement 
has been reached, the DOJ should accept the terms and move 
on.Second, taxpayers should not have to fund legal wars that spend 
money on issues like this when there are plenty of other things the 
Feds can spend money on that really matter to people like myself ( 
the war on terrorism comes to mind). Third, in my opinion, Microsoft 
is king because they have the best product. That's as it should be. 
Accept the settlement and allow them to inovate and produce a 
product that serves the market place. We do not need Washington to 
act as the legal firm for Microsoft competiters who are unhappy with 
their place in the market. Let them build a better mouse and they 
will be king.
    Thanks for your time.



MTC-00012595

From: LOUIS BROMLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I urge you to support the proposed settlement with Microsoft and 
get on with the country's business.
    I believe there are too many politically inspired and punitive 
interests in several states and in the technology industry resisting 
this settlement at our expense as citizens and consumers.
    Your support will be much appreciated.
    Louis Bromley
    Longview, Texas



MTC-00012596

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just want to say that I think Microsoft has been hounded more 
than enough. If other companies worked as hard to keep the economy 
going as they do to unjustly take advantage of Microsoft we all 
would be in better shape. It seems to me that those other high-tech 
companies who are competitors of Microsoft want to keep kicking 
Microsoft in the hopes that they will gain what they

[[Page 25625]]

couldn't gain through their normal business practices. I believe the 
proposed settlement is more than fair.
    Richard Hayworth
    7955 27th St. E.
    Sarasota, FL 34243



MTC-00012597

From: J MALLOY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In 1990 I bought my first computer. It had a profound effect on 
my ability to express myself. There were three basic choices. Apple, 
IBM or IBM compatible. A friend advised me to build my own IBM 
compatible and save several thousand dollars.
    His assessment was that Apple is the easiest to use, but any 
modification to Apple is much more expensive. Because I had no idea 
how a computer works, I decided to buy an IBM to insure quality. 
Looking back, I can see the wisdom in buying an IBM compatible. Over 
the years I have purchased a lot of software for computers. All 
Microsoft software proved to be a good purchase. If they are 
overpriced, the marketplace will adjust their position.
    It is understandable that Mario Monti would like to have 
American ingenuity at a reduced price. I don't understand why anyone 
in the US would like to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. The 
bottom line is that Microsoft puts out a product that allows 
individules to increase their productivity far beyond the cost of 
the software. Why does the US government want to add on all of the 
legal fees to the cost of the software.
    Please tell the attorneys to go get a productive job.



MTC-00012598

From: David R. Freeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft's at it again! ````Destroy! Take no prisoners
    Greetings:
    Please look at the Lindows Press Release that follows.
    David R. Freeman
    To: [email protected]
    Errors-To: mailmgr+3653+1011068361+dave+ [email protected]
    From: ``Cheryl Schwarzman'' [email protected]>
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=``PZ--
5CUipAEgpgYYpcGgB2V1b2Q5A''
    X-PrimeZone-Jobnum: 1011068361
    Subject: LINDOWS.COM FILES MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING TRADEMARK 
LAWSUIT FILED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    Message-Id: 20020115141608.4D1A71BE2A @mercury. primezone.com>
    Date: Tue,  15 Jan 2002 06:16:08 -0800 (PST)
    For Immediate Release
    John Bromhead
    VP of Marketing,
    Lindows.com, Inc.
    4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 450
    San Diego, CA 92122
    [email protected]
    858-642-2501 Direct
    858-410-5999 Fax
    LINDOWS.COM FILES MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING TRADEMARK LAWSUIT 
FILED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION
    SAN DIEGO--January 15th, 2002--Lindows.com announced today that 
it filed a motion to dismiss the pending trademark lawsuit filed by 
Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq ``MSFT'') against Lindows.com. In the 
lawsuit Microsoft seeks to prevent Lindows.com from using the term 
``LindowsOS'' and ``Lindows.com.'' Because Lindows.com has no 
presence and conducts no business in the state of Washington, 
Lindows.com has filed a motion to dismiss the claim citing a lack of 
personal jurisdiction over the San Diego, CA based company. Both 
Lindows.com's motion to dismiss and Microsoft's motion for 
preliminary injunctions are tentatively scheduled for hearing on 
February 1, 2002.
    ``We're looking forward to showing the Court the widespread use 
of the term 'windows' or variations thereof by literally hundreds of 
companies which are not endorsed or sponsored by Microsoft. The fact 
that Microsoft has chosen not to sue these companies demonstrates 
their true motivation in this case is to crush competition from a 
promising new technology which threatens their illegally obtained 
monopoly,'' said Lindows.com CEO, Michael Robertson. As part of the 
legal process, Microsoft Corporation demanded that Lindows.com turn 
over its entire database of names, email addresses and physical 
addresses for parties interested in the yet-to-be-sold operating 
system which will run both popular Microsoft Windows software and 
Linux software.
    ``We're not happy that a company known for illegal business 
practices took the unnecessary step of gaining access to our 
database. In spite of their assurances it will not be used for any 
purpose outside this case, we've alerted our users of Microsoft's 
actions and believe this is another way Microsoft is attempting to 
intimidate a potential competitor,'' commented Robertson. In spite 
of the delays encountered while producing nearly 15,000 pages of 
documents demanded by Microsoft, development of LindowsOS is 
continuing. Screenshots of the product are available at http://
www.lindows.com/screenshots>http://www.lindows.com/http://
www.lindows.com/scre enshots> screenshots.
    A Sneak Preview is expected shortly. The Sneak Preview will not 
be a fully completed product but will showcase many of the unique 
features such as a friendly install alongside an existing Microsoft 
Windows operating system, a streamlined installation process which 
requires no computer knowledge and the ability to run popular 
Windows-based programs. This will be followed by version 1.0 which 
will go on sale in early 2002 for $99.
    To receive Lindows.com press releases via email signup at http:/
/www.lindows.com/mailing>www.lindowshttp://www.lindows.com/
mailing>.com/maili ng
    About Lindows.com, Inc.
    Lindows.com is a consumer company that brings choice to computer 
users.
    Lindows.com, Inc. uses the latest technology to create 
affordable, intuitive, user-friendly products. Lindows.com, Inc. was 
started by Michael Robertson, founder and former CEO of MP3.com. At 
the core of Lindows.com is a new operating system called LindowsOS?, 
a modern, affordable, easy-to-use operating system with the ability 
to run both Microsoft Windows(R) and Linux(R) software.
    About Michael Robertson
    On the frontlines of music aggregation and distribution, 
Robertson founded MP3.com, Inc., the Internet's premier Music 
Service Provider (MSP) in March 1998. MP3.com revolutionized both 
the way new artists distribute their music as well as the way music 
lovers acquire and enjoy music. Robertson and the rest of the 
MP3.com team built a unique and robust technology infrastructure 
that facilitated the storage, management, promotion and delivery of 
digital music. MP3.com hosts the largest collection of digital music 
available on the Internet with more than 1 million songs and audio 
files posted from over a hundred thousand digital artists and record 
labels with millions of music fans. Robertson stepped down as CEO of 
MP3.com to start Lindows.com. Robertson continues to serve in an 
advisory capacity to Vivendi Universal. MP3.com, Inc. is a wholly 
owned subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, S.A.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012599

From: Richard Townsend
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would like to comment on the settlement regarding Microsoft 
and the state attorneys general. My interest in this case is 
strictly as a consumer of software products.
    I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of the 
consumer for the antitrust litigation to be concluded promptly 
without being allowed to continue as the attorneys general are 
advocating. That would just raise costs of software without any real 
benefit to the consumer. There is no question that Microsoft has 
stepped over the line, but they will be penalized for that. The 
motives of the attorneys general appear simply to be to enhance 
their political visibility, to aid Microsoft's competitors, and to 
enrich trial lawyers. Anyone who has purchased the latest versions 
of Microsoft's products has seen a dramatic rise in the prices. It 
doesn't take a genius to figure out that much of the money is going 
into litigation costs. It seems like there is some truth in the 
famous comment by one lawyer to another that ``It's not whether you 
win or lose, it's how long you can keep the meter ticking.''
    Richard L. Townsend
    Nashua, NH



MTC-00012600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:55am

[[Page 25626]]

Subject: Microsost settlement
    Its time to settle the case and move on.
    HY



MTC-00012601

From: Steve(u)Lieberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:55am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I whole-heartedly approve of the Microsoft settlement. Please do 
not continue litigation. The proposed settlement is in the best 
interests of consumers like me and the software industry in general.
    Steve Lieberman



MTC-00012602

From: Bob Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: The Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally
Subject: Some History Worth Reading
    The court proceedings against Microsoft should continue.
    I worked over 30 years for IBM, much of which was with their 
Software business. We felt much of the effects of the Government's 
IBM Antitrust Suit. Everyone thinks the Justice Department lost the 
IBM Suit, but their oversight caused an entire new industry to be 
created.
    Did you know that Microsoft, Compaq, Dell, Internet (as we know 
it today) and the Software Industry would never exist if it had not 
been for the antitrust laws, the IBM anti-trust case and the 
government's oversight. Microsoft should have the same oversight.
    Before 1970 IBM gave all Software away free when you purchased 
IBM's Hardware. The Antitrust Suit caused IBM to unbundle software 
from the hardware and to show a normal (30%) profit in their 
business case for each individual software product announced (no 
?loss leaders? were allowed). This started the independent software 
business.
    As part of this procedure, IBM also did not acquire any other 
company's software on an exclusive basis. When IBM developed the 
Personal Computer in 1979, the PC Division could not buy Microsoft's 
Operating System exclusively.
    The IBM PC became a huge success, and within 3 years IBM had the 
dominate share of this market. But because IBM did not have an 
exclusive agreement from Microsoft, Compaq in 1982 (and later many 
other clone companies) was able to get the Operating System from 
Microsoft and clone the IBM system.
    From this base:
--Compaq became the leader in the PC business,
--None of IBM's competitors wanted to use IBM's proprietary 
networking software (SNA) and Internet took its place,
--The price of PCs dropped significantly, and --An entirely new 
software and hardware business was created.
It would not have happened without IBM's Antitrust Case.
    Like IBM, Microsoft has grown to be a monopoly in the PC 
Operating System business. They should also be constrained like IBM 
was:
--Each product should be unbundled to the lowest level of 
competition.
--All products should be announced showing a normal profit business 
case.
--Software products should not be purchased from others on an 
exclusive basis.
--All proprietary software interfaces should be opened up.
    This type of settlement would also create a new competitive 
environment and many new and creative companies. Not unbundling 
Microsoft will allow them to continue to release non profitable 
software and to bundle products into the operating system that could 
not otherwise survive in the market. This is competitively unfair 
and prevents many new and innovative ideas from reaching the market.
    Robert B. Heath



MTC-00012603

From: Milton Mechlowitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsft
    Its about time the case of Microsoft is setlel and to allow the 
company conduct its bussiness. Ithink Microsoft did what any good 
businee would have done.
    Milton Mechlowitz



MTC-00012604

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TO Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
FROM Susan Cowling
30 Brough Lane, #107
Hampton, VA 23669
    It is my understanding that you will soon prepare a final 
opinion on the Proposed Final Judgment completed by the Department 
of Justice regarding the Microsoft case.
    I am a Microsoft shareholder. As such, it would probably be to 
my best personal financial advantage to support the arguments 
presented by Microsoft and the recommendations of the Justice 
Department in the Proposed Final Judgment.
    However, it seems to me that the well-being of our economy and, 
specifically, the technology sector in this country, is best served 
by open and fair practices. The unanimous decision by the US Court 
of Appeals that Microsoft had violated antitrust laws suggests to me 
that Microsoft has acted in the best interest of Microsoft to the 
denial of the best interests of our nation and the long term 
interest of its industry.
    Admittedly, I am not privy to all the arguments, facts, and 
conditions on which any of the court decisions have been based. I do 
conclude that Microsoft has in the past broken antitrust laws. I 
feel Microsoft should be penalized strongly for these actions. To do 
otherwise is to undermine the antitrust laws, to encourage illegal 
behavior and to condone anticompetitive behavior.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opposition to the 
Proposed Final Judgment as prepared by the Justice Department.



MTC-00012605

From: Douglas Tasker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    I urge all parties in this case to adopt a speedy settlement. 
The proposed remedies seem reasonable and fair. It would appear that 
certain States, and certain corporations, are trying to prolong the 
process for their own self-interests rather than for the good of the 
US economy.
    Microsoft has clearly abused its near-monopolist power to do 
harm to its competitors, and SHOULD be punished. However, the 
proposed remedies do just that: they prevent Microsoft from 
repeating its misdeeds; and will punish it for its sins. Please 
encourage all parties to complete the settlement now. Any delay not 
only hurts Microsoft, it hurts the US economy as a whole.
    Yours Very Sincerely
    Douglas G. Tasker
    Douglas G. Tasker
    3039 Pueblo Puye, Santa Fe, NM 87507-2538
    home: [email protected], (505)474-0258
    [work: [email protected],(505)665-2859]



MTC-00012606

From: Manni Wood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Scott Rosenburg's article for Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/
tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index1.html suggests a good 
solution.
    I still think it would be difficult or impossible to police 
whether or not Microsoft was adequately and honestly documenting its 
APIs, and especially its office file formats (including Exchange!), 
but it *would* give competition such as Star Office and GNU 
OpenOffice and Ximian's Evolution a level playing field.
--Manni Wood
    Manni Wood
    170 Highland Ave., #4, Somerville, MA, 02143
    617 628 8899 . [email protected] ``
    A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.''--
    Lao-zi



MTC-00012607

From: Tom Owen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:40am
Subject: For Renata Hesse: MS settlement proposal comment
    I write to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am 
professionally concerned with computer operations. Microsoft 
software is of great importance to me because of that company's 
global dominance.
    I am not a US citizen and my business does not operate in the 
US, nonetheless the terms of any settlement will have a profound 
effect on the way I work and the solutions I can offer my customers.
    In summary:
--MS is known to use a dominant position to illegally suppress 
competition
--The settlement attempts to open competition by requiring MS to 
make technical interface information available to those who wish to 
create systems to run alongside MS systems

[[Page 25627]]

--The settlement allows MS to restrict access to this information to 
commercial organisations
--The currently available alternatives to MS systems (e.g. to MS 
file and print service, email service, web service, web browsers, 
operating systems and others) are not in any sense commercial 
organisations.
--MS will likely, given its record, use this exemption to deny 
interface information to these systems, its major competitors
--Interface information kept secret allows competitor products to be 
disabled
--The effect of the settlement will be to remove competitive 
pressures from MS and therefore cause harm to the consumer. It's 
only really necessary to expand on the summary to say that the 
settlement has been written without an understanding of the current 
choices available to a software professional. It is striking how 
often the major competitors are produced by non-commercial 
organisations.
    These systems are created and developed largely by unpaid co-
operatives of companies and individuals. This co-operation is made 
possible by licence agreements (open-source licences, most famously 
the Gnu Public Licence--GPL) which prevent any person from 
benefitting from the intellectual property in the text of the 
system's software. Though for-profit organisations may provide 
staff, resources and source code for such a system, the system 
itself and its support group (e.g. Samba, Mozilla, Open Office among 
others) is not a commercial organisation.
    While such ``free'' software is supplied for no more than the 
cost of the media, it is not free in P&L terms. Just as with any 
software the effort of installing and setting up is substantial and 
for any organisation with salaries or limits on staff time this is a 
cost. MS software is popular because MS take care to minimise setup 
effort, regardless of create the consequences. By contrast ``free'' 
software setup can be daunting. I judge that the major ``free'' 
systems have costs in the same order as MS products, though there is 
often a substantial benefit in increased reliability and reduced 
licence administration. There is is competition on features as well 
as cost.
    Major examples where the major competitor to MS is developed by 
non- commercial groups include:
--Microsoft File and Print: Samba
--Microsoft NT: Linux + other applications e.g. Bind, ISC DHCP etc.
--Microsoft Exchange: Sendmail + Many mail clients
--Microsoft IIS: Apache
All of these systems work in environments in which MS components 
also work and because of MS desktop dominance this is a large part 
of their utility. Apache would not be a the most widely used web 
server if MS Internet Explorer could not access its sites. But this 
is only possible because the relevant interface standard (http/html 
in this case) is publically available. The same is true of all the 
systems and it is noticeable how Microsofts close hold of their 
inadequately documented MAPI mail server interface has inhibited 
development of alternative desktop clients for MS Exchange.
    The proposed settlement would allow MS to deny necessary 
interface information to these major competitors. Over time this 
will destroy these systems and remove choice and the restraint which 
available and credible, competition imposes on MS prices.
    Regards
    Tom Owen
    Director



MTC-00012608

From: bleak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Get the gvt. off MSFT back. This is my retirement fund, the 
stock I bought over the years. I am not getting anything from the 
gvt. Get this thing settled so MSFT can go back to business as 
normal and help retired people like myself once again prosper. This 
is a joke that the gvt. is looking out for my interest in 
persecuting a great company like MSFT that built a better mousetrap. 
The competiton is fierce out there.
    R Bleakley



MTC-00012609

From: Barback's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:10am
Subject: Microsoft
3408 Lake Lynn Drive
Gretna, LA 70056-8329
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    ENOUGH ALREADY !!!! GEEZE MANIEZZE !!! GET THIS OVER WITH !!! 
And this from a ?Registered Democrat? since I was 18 yrs old and I 
am 46 now!(Regan Democrat) Your wise leadership is vital to the 
safety and prosperity of our American nation. I hope my thoughts 
will be of benefit to you.
    I am writing to express my relief that this judicial debacle 
referred to as U.S. v. Microsoft is finally coming to an end. While 
I strongly believe that the original lawsuit was OBVIOUSLY 
politically motivated, unfair and vengeful, this settlement is the 
best possible outcome and truly services the American public 
interest. REMEMBER THIS IS WHAT STARTED OUR FINANCIAL MARKETS 
DOWNTURN , Please save our free enterprise society. The provisions 
of the settlement work to ensure accountability, foster innovation 
and improve competition inside the information technology industry. 
The highlight of this settlement is Microsoft's willingness to 
submit to a three person, government appointed technical oversight 
committee which will ensure the company's compliance with the 
agreement. This settlement is three years too late and should be 
implemented immediately. I strongly urge that this agreement be the 
final federal action taken regarding this matter and that the 
participating states move on as well. Thank you.
    With greatest regard,
    signed. .
    David Barback
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012610

From: ROBERT SHIRLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:11am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR SETTLEMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY . 
THAT IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOUR COMPANY WE WOULD STILL BE IN THE MIDDLE 
AGES ,AS FOR AS THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY IS CONCERNED. YOU HAVE DONE 
ALL THE WORK AND NOW PEOPLE OUT THERE ARE WANTING YOUR REWARDS. 
WHERE WERE THEY, WHEN ALL OF YOU WERE SPENDING MANY HOURS CREATING 
PROGRAMS TO RUN A COMPUTER. LET THE CRY BABIES CRY. LET THE COURTS 
BE IN FAVOR TO YOUR COMPANY.
    ROBERT E SHIRLEY
    1564 APACHE CIRCLE
    TAVARES, FL 32778



MTC-00012611

From: gbryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George E. Bryant
5600 School House Court
West Chester, OH 45069
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write you to ask your help in supporting the recent Microsoft 
settlement. After three years of negotiations, this settlement has a 
great deal to offer. The terms of this settlement were negotiated 
under a painstakingly detailed process and under careful 
supervision. The settlement addressed many issues concerning 
antitrust and yielded many productive solutions. In this agreement, 
Microsoft has agreed to make changes in licensing and marketing 
terms, as well as to design future versions of Windows with easier 
access for non-Microsoft software. This is a step toward a more 
unified technology industry and thereby a step toward a more 
concrete economy. Supporting the enforcement of this agreement is 
ultimately beneficial to the consumer, the IT sector and the economy 
as a whole. The delay of this agreement will only cause the 
technology industry to fall behind and continue to focus on 
litigation.
    Please help support this settlement by helping to stop any 
further actions against this agreement. As an Ohio citizen, I have 
more at stake than many other citizens of this country, since my 
state is party to the settlement. I thank you for your time and for 
your continuing support.
    Sincerely,
    George E. Bryant
    cc: U.S. Senator Mike Dewine (Ohio)
    U.S. Senator George Voinovich (Ohio)
    U.S. Representative John Boehner (Ohio)
    Microsoft Co.
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,Voinovich Senato. . . 

[[Page 25628]]



MTC-00012612

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Scott Rosenberg of Salon magazine has stated a fine opinion 
about the Microsoft settlement in his column dated 1/16/2002 on 
Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/
competition/index.html)
    I very much agreed with his opinion and hope that the Justice 
department does take his recommendations under consideration. I 
believe that Microsoft has repeatedly broken the law and that they 
have hurt consumers. I think that forcing Microsoft to open its 
Windows API and the Office document format is a fair and just 
settlement. I do not think that breaking up the company will be as 
good for consumers.
    Thank you for your interest in my opinion,
    Cory Spitz
    OS Software Engineer, Cray, Inc.



MTC-00012613

From: Jean Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:14am
Subject: Settlement of Litigation
    As I have previously submitted my request, I again urge your 
Department to settle this case once and for all. Microsoft is a 
great asset to our economy, and is more than generous in their 
philanthropy around the world. It is an example of what business in 
the USA can do to promote jobs and new innovations.
    Sincerely submitted:
    M. Jean Thompson
    2034 E. No Crescent
    Spokane, Wa 99207
    The greatest of these is LOVE!



MTC-00012614

From: Ken (038) Audrey Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should settle the Microsoft case. It was a needless 
expense for the tax payers and Microsoft.



MTC-00012615

From: Higgs Glenda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:17am
Subject: settlement
    This case should be settled . Enough is enough. . . . .



MTC-00012616

From: Richard hicks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:20am
Subject: Microsoft
January 16 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to let you know my feelings about the 
Microsoft case. First of all I don,t think this is an issue that the 
goverment should be involved in. However, now that the Goverment has 
intervened, I think they should certainly take responsibility and 
allow this case to be settled. Microsoft has created a series of 
unparalled products that other companies just did not have the 
resources to make themselves. Now their competitors will be able to 
compete more fairly as part of settlement. Microsoft is sharing more 
information about their software and server applications and there 
is even an oversight committee to make sure that Microsoft is doing 
all its promises.
    I worked for Hewlett Packard for many years and can say first 
hand that no other company has changed the IT industry as Microsoft 
has. Their methods may not have always been fair, but this 
settlement addresses their problems and is the right step to moving 
the computer industry forward again.
    Sincerely,
    Richard P Hicks
    PO Box 531 619 Water st.
    Charlestown MD 21914



MTC-00012617

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel it is time to get this matter behind us and move on. The 
proposed settlement is fair for all. The country and the economy 
needs to move on.



MTC-00012618

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I approve of the scheme described in the article below (about 
opening up the APIs{time}  and feel that it should be followed.
--Jotham Stavely
--Jotham Stavely
--Abt Associates Inc.
--Hadley, MA
Chips ahoy
    AMD competes with Intel, and the public wins. The right 
Microsoft antitrust settlement can bring the same energy back to the 
software market.
    By Scott Rosenberg
    Jan. 16, 2002  The personal computer industry may be in 
its worst slump in history, but you wouldn't know it by following 
the news from the processor wars. Over the past two years, Intel and 
AMD have unleashed an incredible competitive cycle in Silicon 
Valley. In case you missed it, last week these two chip companies 
offered dueling releases of new flagship processors: Intel unveiled 
its fastest Pentium 4 yet, running at 2.2 gigahertz and built with a 
new .13 micron process that crams even more transistors into an even 
smaller space. AMD, extending the huge success and popularity of its 
Athlon line and the Athlon's most recent and powerful incarnation, 
Athlon XP, announced the XP 2000--a chip that actually runs at 1.67 
gigahertz but, third-party tests show, nearly keeps up with the 2.2 
ghz Pentium 4 in most tasks (and even surpasses it in some).
    What's going on here is simple: Good old-fashioned competition 
drives engineers to continue to work miracles. Intel, the market-
dominating behemoth, has always pushed new, improved products out 
the door faster--and dropped prices more readily--when it feels the 
breath of a credible competitor on its neck. For many years the 
competition was feeble, but that changed when AMD's Duron and Athlon 
chips began giving Intel a run for its money--and, for a time in 
2001, actually bested Intel for the fastest personal-computer chip 
title. Today, these two companies keep spurring each other on, and 
consumers win big. For most of us, that's all we need to know: 
Computers keep getting faster and cheaper. The details are of 
interest only to the legions of hardware nuts, high-performance 
system geeks and chip-overclocking fans who flock to the Web's 
hardware review sites. Right?
    Well, the gigahertz specs may indeed be only geek fodder, but 
the other details of the Intel-AMD rivalry should be of keen 
interest to a much bigger crowd. That's because the competitive heat 
driving the processor market puts the relative frigidity of another 
part of the computer business into bold relief. I refer, of course, 
to the business of designing personal-computer operating systems--a 
business that Microsoft has dominated for years and that, according 
to the confirmed verdict of our federal courts, it now monopolizes. 
What if Microsoft were challenged as strongly on its home turf as 
AMD is now challenging Intel? What innovations, improvements and 
price reductions would the public enjoy that it doesn't, today, 
thanks to the Microsoft monopoly? This is the big question that 
hangs over the continuing struggle to find a meaningful outcome to 
the endless Microsoft antitrust saga. And the AMD/Intel analogy is 
worth pursuing to try to find some answers.
    Microsoft and its supporters, of course, maintain that the 
monopoly label is misplaced. After all, can't you buy a Macintosh 
without buying Microsoft Windows? Can't you obtain a PC and fire it 
up with any of a dozen versions of Linux or other Unix-style 
operating systems? Sure you can--and each of those operating-system 
alternatives has its partisans. But for use by individuals on their 
personal desktops, Microsoft Windows holds the overwhelming market 
share--by nearly every estimate, over 90 percent. Is that simply 
because Windows is superior to the alternatives? There are certainly 
people who believe that; and, to be sure, with the release of 
Windows XP last year, Microsoft finally moved its flagship operating 
system off the aging and increasingly unstable code base it had 
inherited from its infancy and onto the relatively more reliable 
Windows NT/Windows 2000 core.
    But how much faster might Microsoft have achieved that 
improvement if it was racing a tough competitor? And how much more 
incentive might the company have to produce more secure, less virus-
vulnerable products today?
    The historical record is quite clear (and the antitrust trial 
record is just as clear): The central reason Windows has maintained 
and extended its market share over the years is not product 
superiority but a concept economists call ``lock-in.'' Once you have 
all

[[Page 25629]]

your data and all your software applications on one operating system 
or ``platform,'' moving to a different one is painful -- it takes 
time and effort and money (as economists say, your ``switching 
cost'' is high). Over the years Microsoft has not had to push harder 
and faster to improve Windows because it knew that its customers 
were unlikely to make a fast switch to a competitor.
    Now, that picture would be very different if you could somehow 
reduce or eliminate those switching costs. What if competing 
operating systems could seamlessly and interchangeably run the same 
programs and utilize the same data files that Windows does? Here's 
where the Intel/AMD analogy comes in handy. These manufacturers 
compete to provide chips that can run the same computer programs--
known loosely as ``x86 compatible'' code--and that retain 
compatibility with hardware like expansion boards and peripheral 
devices. If you needed to write different versions of each piece of 
software and manufacture different versions of each piece of 
accompanying hardware--one that would work with Intel's chips and 
one that would work with AMD's--the whole competitive market would 
disappear. The weaker player (presumably AMD) would vanish and--
presto!--Intel would have a monopoly as tough as Microsoft's.
    This relatively level playing field in the x86-compatible 
processor business did not come about by sheer happenstance. The 
semiconductor industry is marked by a Byzantine pattern of patent 
cross-licensing agreements; they provide permanent employment for 
legions of lawyers, and laymen seek to understand them only at great 
peril. What's important about them, however, is not how they came 
about but that they work. Now that the federal courts are trying to 
figure out an effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly 
powers, the competition between Intel and AMD provides a valuable 
model. How would one go about enabling Microsoft's rivals to compete 
with it as effectively as AMD is competing with Intel?
    The key here is something known as the Windows API (or 
``applications programming interface'')--the set of instructions 
that Windows programs use to ``talk to'' the operating system. The 
Windows API has long been a murky issue: Microsoft has always 
provided some information to independent developers--it has to if 
third-party Windows programs are going to work. But Microsoft can 
and does muck around with the API, changing things that break 
competitors' products, anytime it wants to. And rumors have long 
buzzed, without ever being nailed down, that Microsoft's own 
developers take advantage of so-called hidden APIs that non-
Microsoft coders can't use.
    The Justice Department's proposed antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its APIs 
to competitors. But the fine print makes it clear that Microsoft 
could pretty much continue with business as usual. A more effective 
remedy would be one that required Microsoft to standardize and 
publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the file formats of its 
Office applications (another key to Microsoft's monopoly ``lock-
in'')--with the express goal of allowing competitors to build 
Windows software applications, and operating systems, that compete 
with Microsoft on a level field.
    Such a plan would require careful oversight and enforcement, 
since Microsoft could easily engage in all manner of foot-dragging. 
If Microsoft set out to be uncooperative, it could release the API 
information slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or in a ``Good 
Soldier Svejk'' fashion -assiduously following the letter of the 
court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit. (There's 
precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved during the 
trial when it told the court that, sure, it would supply a version 
of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but gee, 
sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.)
    Now, I can already hear the howls from the Microsoft corner that 
this plan is evil and un-American because it forces Microsoft to 
give up some of its intellectual property. Well, yes. Microsoft is 
in court as a repeat offender; the current antitrust suit, in which 
a federal district court and an appeals court have both affirmed 
that Microsoft is a monopoly and that it has abused its monopoly 
powers, arose out of the failure of a previous consent-decree 
settlement of an earlier antitrust case. At some point, having 
repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs to pay a price, or it 
will continue with its profitably anticompetitive ways.
    There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last 
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that 
is sitting on a cash hoard of tens of billions of dollars. But 
intellectual property--that's something Bill Gates and his team 
really care about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to 
restore competition in the software market might actually get them 
to change the way they operate. With Microsoft's APIs and file 
formats fully standardized, documented and published, other software 
vendors could compete fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust 
laws are supposed to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome 
but long unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as 
today's processor market is, by genuine competition.
    The Justice Department settlement is currently in a public 
comment period mandated by a law known as the Tunney Act. Through 
Jan. 28 the public is invited to send in comments on the proposal. 
(You can also e-mail them, with ``Microsoft Settlement'' in the 
subject line.) I'm sending this article in, and I encourage readers 
to file their thoughts as well. What good is open government if we 
don't use it?



MTC-00012619

From: Warren Bryld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's move on!!!!!! Settle this lawsuit as proposed. Ignore the 
foot dragging states.



MTC-00012620

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's proposed settlement is reasonable and in the best 
interest of the consumer and economy. The schools will profit and 
more students will be served.



MTC-00012621

From: Darren Zrubek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:00pm
Subject: please,. . please,. . allow us to choose
    hello,
    i am begging that in your travels through this enormous 
undertaking of figuring out all this MS Bull#@$&! that you remember 
one thing. . freedom of choice,. . .  this is exactly what microsoft 
does not allow or promote from a consumer level or corporate level. 
do not take away our right to choose, make MS pay for what they have 
done and in a manner that is fair and acceptable to the rest of the 
free world, not MS.
    dZ
    darren zrubek
    graphics manager/senior illustrator
    spyder active sports, inc.
    303.449.0611 xt 20
    [email protected]



MTC-00012622

From: James Bybee
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Bybee
PO Box 26
Monroe, WI 53566-0026
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 25630]]

    James Bybee



MTC-00012623

From: Al Helm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Al Helm
PO Box 140155
Casselberry, Fl 32708
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Helm



MTC-00012624

From: Ray Kunza
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Kunza
1148 James Farm Rd.
Hickory, NC 28602
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Kunza



MTC-00012625

From: James Horn
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Horn
2 Surrey Court
Chambersburg, PA 17201
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 F. Horn



MTC-00012626

From: James Stead
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Stead
112 Lynne Lane
Mapleville, RI 02839
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Stead



MTC-00012627

From: Anne Stegall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anne Stegall
PO Box 974
Gonzalez, Fl 32560
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25631]]

    Sincerely,
    Anne W Stegall



MTC-00012628

From: Kelly Fuessel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kelly Fuessel
11255 Hwy 79
Taylor, TX 76574
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Fuessel



MTC-00012629

From: Clyde Hanks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clyde Hanks
HCR 65,Box 768
McKinnon, WY 82938
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Clyde Hanks



MTC-00012630

From: Cathy Mayer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cathy Mayer
318 Chestuee Rd
Calhoun, TN 37309
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Cathy Mayer



MTC-00012631

From: Jane Macek
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Macek
8 Fillmore Avenue
Endicott, NY 13760
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Macek



MTC-00012632

From: ken smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ken smith
56 powers rd
littleton, ma 01460
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 L. Smith

[[Page 25632]]



MTC-00012633

From: Janet Gruber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Gruber
805 Sunset Blvd
Ellwood City, PA 16117
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Gruber



MTC-00012634

From: Jose Tallet
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jose Tallet
119 Enchanted Oaks
Bonaire, GA 31005
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jose E. Tallet



MTC-00012635

From: Charles Jenkins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Jenkins
Box 17
pottsgrove, pa 17865-0017
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Jenkins



MTC-00012636

From: Hazel Gibson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hazel Gibson
6898 Burdine St.
Orange, TX 77632
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Hazel D. Gibson



MTC-00012637

From: Sterling Conover
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sterling Conover
PO Box 721
Hanna, WY 82327
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sterling J. Conover



MTC-00012638

From: Jim Harrill
To: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25633]]

Date: 1/16/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Harrill
114 Steuben Dr.
Huntersville, NC 28078
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Harrill



MTC-00012639

From: John Morrison
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Morrison
207 Veranda Trail
Pearcy, AR 71964
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Morrison



MTC-00012640

From: Donald Rammel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Rammel
7509 St. Rt. 287
ZANESFIELD, OH 43360
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 P RAMMEL



MTC-00012641

From: Carl Albarado
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Albarado
7537 Johnston St.
Maurice, La 70555
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Albarado



MTC-00012642

From: Richard Wolfe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Wolfe
13718 60th Ave NW
Stanwood, WA 98292
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rich Wolfe



MTC-00012643

From: Joseph Gonie
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Gonie

[[Page 25634]]

708 Cedar Point Rd.
Warsaw, Va 22572
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 L. Gonie



MTC-00012644

From: Jan Steenback
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Steenback
111 Woodcliff Ct
Simpsonville, SC 29681
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Steenback



MTC-00012645

From: Robin Murphree
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robin Murphree
397 McClellan Drive
Frederick, MD 21702
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Microsoft's trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance 
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 L. Murphree



MTC-00012646

From: Henry Golden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry Golden
115 Wasson Way
Simpsonville, SC 29680
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Henry Golden



MTC-00012647

From: Gloria Clark
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gloria Clark
305 Bowers Bridge Rd.
Manchester, PA 17345
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Renshaw Clark



MTC-00012648

From: Robert Edwards
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Edwards
2837 Union School Road
Alton, IL 62002-6936
January 16, 2002

[[Page 25635]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 S. Edwards



MTC-00012649

From: Janet Breneman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janet Breneman
2040 N. 6 St
Terre Haute, IN 47804-2725
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Breneman



MTC-00012650

From: Donna Cather
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Cather
PO Box 130
Onalaska, Tx 77360-0130
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Cather



MTC-00012651

From: WILLIAM SHERRIS
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WILLIAM SHERRIS
9157 EMERSON AVE
SURFSIDE, FL 33154
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. SHERRIS



MTC-00012652

From: Emil Punter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emil Punter
2639 Berkshire Drive
Geneva, Il 60134
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
Emil M. Punter
  



MTC-00012653

From: Marilyn King
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marilyn King
323 Lake Side Circle
Boerne, TX 78006-5611
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 25636]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn J. King



MTC-00012654

From: Yvonne Golden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Yvonne Golden
115 Wasson Way
Simpsonville, SC 29680
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Yvonne Golden



MTC-00012655

From: Sandra Price
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sandra Price
2119 Linwood Oaks
Pearland, TX 77581
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 W. Price



MTC-00012656

From: Alice Cable
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Cable
8610 Charro Lane
San Antonio, TX 78217
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alice V. Cable



MTC-00012657

From: henry fangoons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
henry fangoons
10 anthony drive
spring valley, ny 10977
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    henry rangoon



MTC-00012658

From: Peter Graczykowski
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Graczykowski
20 Partridge Lane
Chicopee, MA 01022
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust 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 25637]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Graczykowski



MTC-00012659

From: Mark Roberts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Roberts
771 N. Knollwood
Columbus, IN 47203-9395
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Roberts



MTC-00012660

From: Dennis McDonald
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis McDonald
PO Box 1041
Georgetown, KY 40324
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 McDonald



MTC-00012661

From: Regena C. Rogers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Regena C. Rogers
7022 Glacier Lane
Harrison, TN 37341
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Regena C. Rogers



MTC-00012662

From: Earl Abel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Earl Abel
32185 AL.Highway 91 Lot #7
Hanceville, AL 35077-6547
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Abel



MTC-00012663

From: John Saunders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Saunders
4439 Mac Eachen Blvd.
Sarasota, FL 34233-1731
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a 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 25638]]

over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Saunders



MTC-00012664

From: Van Sher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:37am
Subject: microsoft settlement
MILTON G. LEVY, INC.
REAL ESTATE/APPRAISAL
6160 BROCKTON ROAD
HATBORO, PA 19040
(215) 957-6400
FAX (215) 441-8448
[email protected]
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing this letter to express my concern over the 
prolongation of the settlement process in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. The principal parties, with the trial court's endorsement, 
have hammered out a settlement agreement, which deals with the 
principal complaints of Microsoft's competitors and critics. The 
company has agreed to numerous concessions that should satisfy all 
but its most vengeful adversaries. It's time to put this matter to 
rest. It appears that doing the right thing is taking a back seat to 
politics, and that sacrifices money and resources that could help 
future generations.
    Is this a paradox to the ``AMERICAN DREAM''? The settlement will 
require Microsoft to radically alter its business and marketing 
practices. Windows systems will now be configured to not just to 
accept, but even to promote other companies' software. Microsoft 
will share information about certain internal Windows interfaces 
with competitors. Microsoft will abstain from its past anti-
competitive practices and will not retaliate against software and 
hardware competitors. Microsoft has even agreed to submit itself to 
ongoing review by a new government oversight committee. Obviously, 
Microsoft has agreed to a lot! Please give your approval to this 
agreement. Our now faltering economy does not need an economic giant 
like Microsoft hobbled by endless litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Van Sher
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00012665

From: FRAN dougherty
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
FRAN dougherty
512 w. rively ave
Glenolden, PA 19036
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    FRAN DOUGHERTY



MTC-00012666

From: Nancy Saggio
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Saggio
28 Twp. Rd. 281 Lot 35
Steubenville, oh 43952
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 L. Saggio



MTC-00012667

From: Fred Gates
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Gates
210 Poplar Street
Monroeville, PA 15146-4004
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 and Ginny Gates



MTC-00012668

From: John Hendricks
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hendricks
504 Tower Dr. #4
Louisville, KY 40207
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:

[[Page 25639]]

    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 M. Hendricks



MTC-00012669

From: Eric & Michele Burns
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric & Michele Burns
323 Freedom Dr.
Franklin, TN 37067
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eric & Michelle Burns



MTC-00012670

From: Gary Wagner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Wagner
Roseland, 200 Highland Ave.
Lewistown, PA 17044-1333
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Wagner



MTC-00012671

From: Patsy Carter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patsy Carter
1414 airline place
Rosharon, tx 77583
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Carter



MTC-00012672

From: Douglas Norvell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Norvell
424 Sleepy Meadow Drive
Mt. Vernon, MO 65712
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 E. Norvell



MTC-00012673

From: Elizabeth Broussard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Broussard
15150 Memorial Drive
Houston, TX 77079-4304
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    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 25640]]

industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Broussard



MTC-00012674

From: Paul Bowman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Bowman
807 S. Atlantic Ave.
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Bowman, Active Republican



MTC-00012675

From: Cynthia Knapp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cynthia Knapp
168 Jericho Manor
Jenkintown, PA 19046
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Knapp



MTC-00012676

From: Grace Cushman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Grace Cushman
520 North Monroe St
Hastings, MI 49058-1127
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Grace J Cushman



MTC-00012677

From: George Hasenbein
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Hasenbein
4460 Suwanee Dam Road
Suwanee, GA 30024-1984
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 H. Hasenbein



MTC-00012678

From: Charles Hollis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Hollis
4209 Pleasantwood Rd
Knoxville, TN 37921
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    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 25641]]

industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 R Hollis Jr



MTC-00012679

From: Kyle Stanchfield
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kyle Stanchfield
192 East 13th Street
Fond du Lac, WI 54935
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kyle John Stanchfield



MTC-00012680

From: Floyd Yarrington
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Floyd Yarrington
4384 Woodridge Dr.
Hillsboro, MO 63050-2608
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Floyd E. Yarrington



MTC-00012681

From: albert stanifer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
albert stanifer
399 crawford tom's run rd.
new lebanon, Oh 45345
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    albert stanifer



MTC-00012682

From: Dorothy Nave
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Nave
1771 Upper Snake Spring Road
Everett, Pa 15537
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Nave



MTC-00012683

From: Hallie Schneeweiss
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hallie Schneeweiss
85 Galileo Drive
Williamsville, NY 14221-2776
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust 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 25642]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Hallie F. Schneeweiss



MTC-00012684

From: Laurie Hilgers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laurie Hilgers
39094-206th Street
Green Isle, MN 55338
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Laurie Hilgers



MTC-00012685

From: Robert Stanley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Stanley
22367 St. Rt. 335
Waverly, OH 45690
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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.Stanley Jr.



MTC-00012686

From: Thomas E. McBrayer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas E. McBrayer
13310 St. Augustine Road
Jacksonville, Fl 32258
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E. McBrayer



MTC-00012687

From: Nancy Wethington
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Wethington
4399 W. Bittner Lane
New Palestine, IN 46163-9547
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Wethington



MTC-00012688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:39am
    This settlement should be rapidly taken care of. The actions of 
the government so far has cost me and all tax payers $1000s of 
dollars. MDM



MTC-00012689

From: Samuel G. Sheterom, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samuel G. Sheterom, Jr.

[[Page 25643]]

528 Monroe Blvd.
Painesville, OH 44077-2838
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel G. Sheterom, Jr.



MTC-00012690

From: Andre Schan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andre Schan
41 Horseneck Road
Montville, NJ 07045
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry (look at the NASDAQ index since the Microsoft 
litigation started). It is high time for this trial, and the 
wasteful spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed 
see competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And 
the investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Andre Schan



MTC-00012691

From: Derek Brine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We urge acceptance of the settlement offered by Microsoft.
    It's time to accept this offer and let the Company concentrate 
on new fields of endeavor.



MTC-00012692

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We agree that this case should be settled as proposed without 
any further litigation or court action. Please expedite the 
settlement and stop any further action.
    David & Barbara Bullard
    1116 Woodstock Lane
    West Chester, PA 19382



MTC-00012693

From: JAN FENSKE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern in the Dept of Justice:
    As a citizen if the United States I feel the Dept of Justice has 
more important things to spend their money on than pursuing 
Microsoft on this Antitrust suit. Please settle it timely.
    Thank you.
    Janice A. Fenske



MTC-00012694

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:00pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I wonder if there has ever been a greater misapplication of the 
law than the DOJ action against Microsoft? Certainly the consumer 
has not been harmed by this company. Could there ever have been 
personal computers costing less than $1,000 with the capacity of 
today's machines without Microsoft? If you understand the dynamics 
of the computer business you would have to say, ``NO.'' The idea 
that with more competition in operating system software, there MIGHT 
have been more benefit to the consumer is ludicrous. The industry 
needed one stable target for which to build hardware and write 
application software. The operating system was the one logical 
target.
    Had there been two or more truly competitive operating systems, 
the efforts of the hardware builders and application software 
writers would have been diluted, available budgets would have been 
stretched too thin, market sizes reduced and a huge element of 
confusion introduced. The reason there was only one operating system 
is that the industry could afford to work with only one operating 
system and still move at the blistering pace that provided 
inexpensive, powerful machines. Over the years it was Microsoft 
which took the right risks, made the right decisions and drove their 
work force to make the right solutions to earn being the provider of 
that operating system. It is time to resolve this fiasco by our 
government. Microsoft should have been found innocent by the courts. 
But because of a rogue trial judge and political fears within the 
appellate court, that is not going to happen. Take the ``ounce of 
flesh'' by causing Microsoft to supply the software to our less 
fortunate educational institutions and let's get on with life.
    Ted Hannum
    Seattle



MTC-00012695

From: Sean Gallagher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    A behavioral remedy does not correct the imbalance of 
competition in the computer software industry, and the technology 
industry in general, created by Microsoft's past and current illegal 
monopolistic practices. In addition to the proposed behavioral 
remedies, I believe a monetary penalty should be imposed, and used 
to fund education programs and loan programs that encourage the 
development of new competition in the information technology 
marketplace. With its large cash reserves of over $30 billion, 
amassed at least in part through illegal business practices, 
Microsoft can extend its monopoly into other areas easily through 
acquisitions of innovative small companies and even competitive 
larger ones. The only way to prevent this is through a large cash 
fine.
    Respectfully,
    Sean Gallagher
    1205 W. 41 St.
    Baltimore, MD 21211



MTC-00012696

From: Kay Marquez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hello Dept of Justice
    I would like to see the Microsoft Case be settled?it is wasting 
valuable resources and time and we need to focus on the U.S. 
economy.
    Kay Marquez, REALTOR(R), GRI
    Creative Property Services--Central Santa Rosa
    831 4th St.
    Santa Rosa CA 95404
    vm 707.569.2163
    cell ph 707.484.4526
    800.743.5401 ext. 163



MTC-00012697

From: thomas parsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:11pm
Subject: Settlement of antitrust case against

[[Page 25644]]

Microsoft
    As a consumer, I have a choice as to the products I wish to 
purchase and no one forces me to purchase one over the other. It was 
my own decision to purchase Microsoft. This case discourages 
innovative thinking and those companies who don't do as well as they 
would like to, have wasted a lot of tax payer money carrying out a 
vengeful case towards someone who has done better than them. Let's 
expend our energies for (and get on with) the important issues in 
America, such as protecting hard working employees as those from 
Enron who have really been taken advantage of and it is criminal 
what has happened to them! It must have been a slow day for lawyers 
and our congress when (under Clinton's admin. or lack of admin.) 
this trumped up charge was brought against Microsoft. STOP WASTING 
THE TAXPAYERS MONEY on frivolous things--go for the important 
issues. We had 8 years of stagnation, let's start working for the 
good of the American people.
    Tom & Terri Parsons



MTC-00012698

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the subject proposed settlement and believe it 
is fair to all parties involved. I urge it's final adoption and 
approval.
    James W. Root
    14611 Broadgreen Dr.
    Houston, TX 77079
    281-497-6931



MTC-00012699

From: William Crowder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:17pm
Subject: The Microsoft case
    I want to urge and Department of Justice to settle this case. 
The decision by the Court of Appeals was tough enough. The Company 
is willing to comply and schools will be helped by this decision to 
require Microsoft to donate a large amount of merchandise. Just 
because the Company is large and successful it should not be further 
penalized. The compeitors of Microsoft have gone too far in urging 
the other states not to accept the agreement, to require the Company 
to do even more. Microsoft employs a large work force, it certainly 
contributes a great amount to the American economy and to that of 
the area where it is located. Let's get on beyond this stage of 
extracting more``blood from the turnip'' to so speak, settle the 
case and let successful companies free to continue to innovate and 
succeed, Signed:
    William W. Crowder, PH.D.
    629 North Street,
    Lafayette, IN 47901.



MTC-00012700

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letter to Attorney General Ashcraft has been sent.
    Jack Bass



MTC-00012701

From: Tyler Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone!!
    the DOJ has no right meddling with the entepenureship of one 
man. Look what you've done to the phone system (Bell Labs). Why 
don't you take a closer look at the CABLE TV Companies instead!!
    STOP WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS!!!!
    I WILL MAKE IT A POINT TO VOTE AGAINST ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL 
INVOLVED WITH THE BREAK UP OF MICROSOFT!!



MTC-00012702

From: Laura Dodds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:16pm
Subject: D.O.J. vs Microsoft Case
    I would encourage the Department of Justice to accept the 
Microsoft proposal to donate computers/ funds to schools and end 
this case.
    I believe it is most IMPORTANT to let Microsoft move forward to 
create more communications software for people all over the world to 
share medical, scientific, and all other knowledge.
    To continue legal proceedings and delay progress in worldwide 
communications is reprehensible. There is no other group as 
dedicated or as capable to continue this project for all humanity. 
[email protected]



MTC-00012703

From: Buzz Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    The proposed settlement accepted by 9 of the 18 states is a good 
settlement. I believe it is fair and in my best interest as a 
software consumer, computer user and business owner. I believe that 
the states that don't want to settle are being influenced by big 
business interest who want more than a level playing field. They 
want to tip the playing field their way and see this as a great 
opportunity to do just that. I do not believe for a minute that the 
states that refuse to settle do so in the best interest of their 
constituents much less consumers in general. I believe what they 
want will, in the end, hurt not only the consumer and the software 
industry but will hurt the economy in general at a time when the 
economy is in the depths of a recession. How much more do we the 
consumers have to put up with at the hands of big business and their 
political cronies?
    Put an end to the abuse of industry and the legal system at the 
greedy hands of a few rich and powerful business men who want 
nothing more than to ELIMINATE one of their competitors; a result 
that can only be bad for the consumers.
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my point of view on an 
issue that is very important.
    Kindest Regards
    Buzz Cole
    President, NWPT Inc.



MTC-00012704

From: Thomas Chistensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:31pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am in favor of ending the litigation against microsoft. 
Therefore I am in favor of the settlement. I think the case was ill 
advised from the begining. I would like more features on a computer 
not less. I would like a single vendor not many.
    Very truly yours,
    Thomas Christensen Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile 
device: Click Here



MTC-00012705

From: Nelson, Marty
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  12:31pm
Subject: US vs.
Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the method of process that this case has taken. The 
States are looking for a handout just like they got from the tobacco 
settlement. This is pure greed.
    As a user of Microsoft products I fully support their 
development efforts. Yes they are aggressive in their business 
practices but no more than many other industry leaders. Netscape's 
original complaint was a whining company defeated at the market 
place by a better product. Another cry for compensation only this 
time from a disgruntled competitor.
    Why not let Microsoft do what they do best--provide technology 
and innovation to schools and public facilities so we all benefit. 
As proven in the state's tobacco settlement, the money is not being 
spent on what it was intended for but rather allocated elsewhere for 
other things.
    D. Marty Nelson
    5609 NW Lac Leman Dr.
    Issaquah, WA 98027



MTC-00012706

From: Pete Priel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been an information technology professional since 1991. 
In my present career I'm a computer consultant that supports Windows 
and Macintosh computers. My Macintosh business is almost nil and the 
clients I do have on Mac are all phasing them out--even though the 
Macs are fast, and run MS Office quite well. And now more than ever 
when Mac OS X costs $149 to upgrade and Windows XP costs $50 more at 
$199--those clients are still staying the course and phasing out 
Macs and PC's running other operating systems and software.
    How can this be. . . 
    FACT: DOJ has determined Microsoft to be a monopoly.
    Even though the judgment was recent, this has been the case 
since 1995. And is still the case, now! How can you explain it when 
people $50 more for a product to upgrade even though the competitive 
product is equal and in many cases superior: Monopoly. How can it be 
that my Mac clients are phasing out their 2 year old Macs and buying 
Machines with Windows XP pre-installed without paying for the cost 
of the operating system:

[[Page 25645]]

Monopoly. Here's the Microsoft strategy even now: Lose money on 
Windows XP on the new PC's and since Windows is the only choice in 
the desktop arena, inflate the price charged for upgrades. And from 
my economics 101 class Microsoft can only do this because they do in 
fact have a Monopoly.
    THIS IS UN-AMERICAN!
    DOJ has a tough job. How to remedy? The goals of remedy are 
correct. But I would urge:
    1. Publish ALL Windows API information
    2. Chaperon Bill and Ballmer so they are force to--share--this 
for 10 years
    3. Have a group validate the API as to it's correctness
    4. Have 2 & 3 be implemented though an--International--standards 
group like the ISO, ANSI or some other such organization
    And more to the point
    1. Force M$ to charge a normal market value for their OS to 
hardware VARs like Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Pete Priel
    Pete Priel
    Tech House SF
    322 Cortland Ave. #89
    Phone: (415)309-4210
    e-FAX: (415)276-1912
    www.techhousesf.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00012707

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Proposal
    To Whom
    Please hear my personal opinion: Accept the proposal Microsoft 
has offered and finish this mess. Alot of lawyers have gotten rich 
off of this lidigation and it hasn't helped the country at all.
    Thank-you,
    Mary W. Hall



MTC-00012708

From: Andres Mera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view is that the microsoft case should be settlet no further 
litigated.



MTC-00012709

From: Kurtis Behn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interest of public comment:
    I think the only way that true competition in the interest of 
the consumer can be returned to the OS/Office Software industries 
would be to publicize and standardize the API and file formats. The 
only useful punishment for Microsoft's wrongdoings would be to 
hamstring it's power embodied by it's intellectual property. But 
beyond this sort of childish retribution, the only way the software 
industry can truly benefit the consumer (in the spirit of processors 
and AMD/Intel) would be take the 'switching costs' out of the 
equation and allow for the competition in the industry to center 
around providing benefits to the user not elbowing (and/or strong-
arming) one's way through backroom deals.
    Thank you
    Kurt



MTC-00012710

From: CAD/Pacific
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:45pm
Subject: MIcrosoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the entire Microsoft suit should just be dropped. 
Microsoft has not committed fraud or theft.
    Just drop the suit and allow the free market to work things out. 
Microsoft might be very surprised.
    Bill Goode
    Los Angeles



MTC-00012711

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
    USDOJ, Having written several times before, I am again urging 
you to close this seemingly endless litigation against the most 
significant company to come along in 50 years. I continue to believe 
they have done no wrong, unless being an agressive competitor is 
contrary to our free market ideals. This case was initiated by a 
couple of cry-baby competitors who couldn't keep up with Gates and 
Ballmer. It is now taking on the role as a showcase for a few 
maverick state attorneys general who are more interested in pursuing 
their own goals than those of the public they represent. Haven't we 
spent enough time and money on this witch hunt? Let's allow the 
original judgement to stand, and get back to the task of rebuilding 
our economy rather than tearing it down. Thanks for your 
consideration.
    Peter C. Pallette



MTC-00012712

From: Lowell D. Neufeld
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  12:55pm
Subject: Easy to Use Software
    To whom it may concern:
    As an ordinary none technically inclined software user, I have 
been amazed at how easy the Microsoft integrated software products 
are to learn and use. I shudder to think of the fragmentation in 
software that would have occurred without Microsoft setting the 
standard. What a bargain the operating system is! For the same cost, 
with each new upgrade, I get more things integrated which translates 
in easier to use. Why should I be asked to pay more money to obtain 
these editions from other vendors when I can get the same 
functionality with no extra cost. As a consumer I love the ease of 
use the Microsoft monopoly has given me.
    Lowell D. Neufeld



MTC-00012713

From: carl merz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a great American company that has suffered years of 
government intervention on behalf of the competitors of Microsoft, 
not the public. Microsoft's competitors have been unable bring to 
the world fantastic products at almost unbelievable low prices that 
Microsoft has achieved because, Microsoft created numerous visionary 
useful products that are seamless, and work in harmony with each 
other without special knowledge of the user. This forward thinking 
vision produced economy of scale, market interest and lower prices. 
This benefits consumers and led to tremendous increases in 
productivity. Instead of relentless pursuit of Microsoft our 
government should protect Microsoft against worldwide theft of 
intellectual property and cherish and respect the company that led 
our country to greater productivity and leadership in the 
information age. I believe there is plenty of room for challengers 
with new visions but not much for the less creative. Microsoft 
rewards its employees, stockholders and created a new paradigm for 
others to follow.
    Therefore without hesitation I recommend that we proceed with 
settlement of the case without any additional wasteful litigation 
against Microsoft.
    Carl A. Merz
    President
    Hartford Aviation Group, Inc.
    Aircraft Engine Leasing
    Tel: (860)549-0096 Fax: (860)525-5351
    [email protected]
    This message contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 
intended solely for the use of the addressee's) named above. Any 
disclosure, distribution, copying or use of the information by 
others is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in 
error, please advise the sender by immediate reply and delete the 
original message. Thank you.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012714

From: George Flake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:00pm
Subject: Comments
    I believe that the Justice Department and the various states 
involved should drop their charges against Microsoft. These 
antitrust charges have cost Microsoft, US Taxpayers, Microsoft stock 
holders and the general economy an enormous amount of money. 
Continuing these charges will add substantially to the losses of 
taxpayes and stock holders. Microsoft is one of the most innovative 
companys in the world. Let them continue their innovation which has 
been and will continue to benefit the US and world economy.
    George H. Flake
    17867 Amberwood Lane
    South Bend, IN 46635



MTC-00012715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    As a citizen who has watched this litigation roll on and on, I 
would like to see it end.
    I think the settlement is fair for all concerned and in the 
public's best interest. Let's not drag it on ant longer.
    James & Ivy Sandsmark

[[Page 25646]]

    8040 116th Ave SE
    Newcastle, WA 98056



MTC-00012716

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:10pm
Subject: RE: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    On behalf of and at instruction from Arkansas Governor Mike 
Huckabee, I am forwarding his comments on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement Agreement for your review. If you have any questions, 
please feel free to contact me at any time.
    Sincerely yours,
    Kelly Boyd

Policy Advisor for Technology
Office of the Governor
State of Arkansas
501-682-9060
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:
    Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to 
consumers and businesses. When word of a possible settlement in the 
Microsoft case broke, the markets surged. In spite of gloomy 
economic reports, the news was viewed by investors as a sign that 
our nation's critically important high-tech industry could move 
forward without the continuing shadow of government interference. It 
is my view that the provisions of the proposed settlement will be 
good for consumers, businesses, the technical sector and our economy 
as a whole.
    As I understand it, the settlement places sanctions on Microsoft 
without destroying the company. These sanctions will foster greater 
competition in the software industry and give consumers greater 
choice when they purchase and enhance their computers. I am 
encourage by the actions of the Department of Justice and your 
efforts to settle this case.
    Please accept this correspondence as my full support for both 
the Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys General in the 
efforts to finally put an end to this case and agree to a settlement 
that is in our nation's best interest.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Mike Huckabee
    Governor
    State of Arkansas
    State Capitol Building
    Suite 250
    Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
    CC:[email protected]. ar.us@inetgw,Brenda. Turner@gov. . . .



MTC-00012717

From: Piaw Na
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:11pm
Subject: about the microsoft settlement
    As a software professional of 13 years experience, I agree with 
Scott Rosenberg's statement in his article http://www.salon.com/
tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index1.html. We cannot have 
reasonable improvement and innovation without competition in the 
operating system markets, and the current proposed settlement does 
not provide reasonable competition for Microsoft. As a repeat 
offender of the Anti-Trust laws, Microsoft needs to have it's APIs 
made public, and be itself forced to conform to them.
    Once that is done, Linux, FreeBSD, and other platforms can then 
be built to effectively compete with Microsoft.
    Yours,
    Piaw Na
    Sunnyvale, CA



MTC-00012718

From: Jon Debonis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. Today I was searching the web for an 
alternative graphics program because I can't afford the 500.00 for 
Photoshop, and I found one that modifies all the standard file 
formats for far less than adobe's product. When it comes time to 
upgrade to the new versions of a pc operating system that supports 
all the hardware in my system, or that I can run any standard suite 
of applications on I will be forced to buy Microsoft Windows.
    Microsoft cannot be allowed to push out the competition.
    Microsoft must share its api's.
    Jon Debonis
    Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP)
    Castro Valley, CA



MTC-00012719

From: Bob Lukitsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree in principal with the author of this article. Although I 
think it would be just as effective had the court ordered a break-up 
of Microsoft into two entities, one for the operating system and one 
for the applications. That way the operating system division would 
seek to maximize the inter operability of all Windows applications, 
not just the ``homegrown'' variety.



MTC-00012720

From: ESM(a)mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:22pm
Subject: Undermining our faith in the US Government
    Hi:
    My two cents on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. . . in a 
word, ridiculous. Microsoft is the largest, most successful monopoly 
in US history and has a corporate culture, starting with Bill Gates, 
of lying, stealing, cheating, badgering and illegally bludgeoning 
everyone and anyone whom they perceive as a ``competitor''. They 
will continue their rampage in the computer industry until the US 
Government actually DOES SOMETHING to end their monopolistic 
practices.
    The current settlement on the table is not this solution but 
rather a pathetic slap on the wrist. It just goes to show you that 
when you have enough money you can BUY the right to lie, steal and 
cheat in the marketplace (in general, the corrupt politicians in 
Washington are almost wholly responsible for this with the 
Republicans, which I am embarassed to admit that I am one, leading 
the way in CASH for FAVORS).
    Oh yeah. . . and about that rhetoric floating around about it 
being anti-American and anti-Capitalist to prosecute Microsoft. . . 
the obvious source of this sentiment is Microsoft. This is Bill 
Gates propaganda campaign to derail the antitrust ruling against 
Microsoft and WE DON'T BUY IT.
    There is only so much we as American citzens will tolerate when 
it comes to the fleecing of the general public. The time is drawing 
nigh where there will be a wholesale revolt against this kind of 
crap and WE THE PEOPLE will begin electing reps who actually 
represent us and not BIG CORPORATIONS.
    . . . e



MTC-00012721

From: Jane Montague Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It makes no sense to deny kids to access to some of the best 
technology in the world as part of the settlement just for the 
purpose of giving Apple a leg up by forcing to MS to provide money 
to buy Apple software and products. If MS produces inferior products 
to Apple there could be an argument, but they are both good 
technology. It seems that schools could get more for their money if 
MS donates MS products as part of the settlement rather than having 
to purchase a competitors high priced products that are no better. 
Lets think of giving the schools more not less. Attempts to put MS 
out of business are misguided as it will become extremely expensive 
to hire technicians who are needed to resolve issues involved in 
making the switch. The technicians get rich and the schools loose.
    How is it that Apple seems to dominate the market for elementary 
school computer technology. Have they engaged in unfair marketing?? 
Why can't the two work together and make their software 
interchangable for each others OS, rather than the government 
setting up a scenario where one will be put out of business. 
resulting in more of a dominance of the market.



MTC-00012722

From: Ivan Baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    The current settlement is completely unaaceptable. It leaves the 
Microsoft monopoly intact. The absolute minimum acceptable would be 
to force (with extreme enforcement provisions) Microsoft to release 
ALL of the APIs and force them to sell copies of Windows to computer 
makers without Office bundled in. Ivan
    Ivan Baxter
    Graduate Student
    Harper Lab
    The Scripps Research Institute
    858-784-9825

[[Page 25647]]



MTC-00012723

From: Don (q)Foxy(q) Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please get this microsoft settlement taken care of so microsoft 
can get on with there tech movements
    thank you
    don fox.
    [email protected]



MTC-00012724

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I m no real strong fan of Microsoft the government s case 
against the company is nothing more than a class warfare witch hunt 
promulgated by the Clinton Administration and carried forward by 
Janet Reno. This act alone was largely responsible for high tech 
stocks to plummet in value. Bill Gates and his cohorts are a prime 
example of ordinary people accomplish -ing extraordinary things in 
our capitalistic society. What Micrsoft has REALLY done is to 
pioneer and encourage others (a.k.a the competion) to pioneer inno- 
vative breakthroughs in computer technology that has brought us 
consumers better products at the lowest possible prices. If the 
Microsoft s competition can t stand the heat of competion they 
should look for another line of work. We had a saying back home: If 
you can t run with the big dogs then stay on the porch! And the 
government should end this nonsense NOW and get out of the way of 
capitalism at work. Uncle Sam has done enough harm to consumers with 
the wrong- headed persecution of Bill Gate et al.



MTC-00012725

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time to end the Microsoft litigation. Court time is not 
productive for anyone.



MTC-00012726

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You have rolled over and died. Microsoft has beaten you with a 
shape stick. You will probably never see this email. Microsoft is 
the worst company in the world and the DOJ wants to let them off 
with a slap on the wrist? Search your history: 1955 Consent Decree 
between IBM and DOJ. IBM was broken into 3 groups at least and not 
allowed to disparage or unhook. In 1999 they got you DOJ to recind 
the CD.
    Do the same thing to Microsoft. Dont allow them to have IE an 
integral part of the OS. Separate the OS from the applications. Tell 
them to play by the rules or cease and disist. No more bulling of 
small companies. DOJ should have started from the position of 
putting Microsoft out of business. They are not the All American 
firm they want you to believe. They are ruthless and destructive and 
destroy every thing and every one in their way. Rant and Rave. I 
just got a phone call from an organization the called itself 
Americans for Technology Leadership. It s a front for Microsoft. 
Someone called and I told him my point and he hung up the phone. No 
guts. Wanna play hardball. So far DOJ has played softball. Dont send 
me an automatic respone.
    McWalters



MTC-00012727

From: gmasterson@buffalo computergraphics.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to bring the Microsoft case to conclusion. I am in 
full agreement with the settlement and believe it should be 100% 
supported.
    Thank you.



MTC-00012728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its time that we move on and get back to business. This country 
and Microsoft have been at war long enough. This is hurting the 
computer business and the economy. Please do not allow this to them 
to continue to try to break a company that was doing their best to 
provied products to people to increase their productive lives. This 
is suppost to be a free market country but it seems like its ok with 
the competor does things that are misleading but MS is not allowed. 
Please do not change the ruling and close the case.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sally Wise



MTC-00012729

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    lets settle this issue!. The public is not being hurt. let s not 
give up the competitive edge we enjoy in the world today.
    Kurt



MTC-00012730

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement set forth is in the best interests of all 
parties involved and should be agreed to by all.
    I believe this case has dragged on long enough at the expense of 
the American taxpayer. I still believe that the original foundings 
of the case are not warranted and that in fact the reason why 
Microsoft has captured the market is because they sell innovative 
products at fair market prices. Every effort should be made by the 
Justice department to conclude this lawsuit.



MTC-00012731

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I appreciate the role of the Justice Department in 
monitoring the actions of companies thoughout the US I believe we 
have reached the point of diminishing returns in considering 
additional remedies for overstepping those bounds. I also want to 
point out that from the perspective of the consumer we are most 
interested in software that works. In my experience though not 
perfect the MS software gives me what I need to get my work done. I 
think it is time to come to a settlement and move on for the sake of 
the economy and technology businesses as a whole.
    Sincerely
    Robert Sanz



MTC-00012732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot condone my government continuing to spend vast amounts 
of money to prosecute a case that I personally believe has little 
merit. I can only see an end result of a weaker US tech sector if we 
continue to punish Microsoft. Enough is enough settle this and let s 
get back to work. The economy is in shambles and getting worse.



MTC-00012733

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can t wait for this stupid court case to be done. What are you 
our leaders doing for us? It is amazing that the US stands for 
competition until you compete too much or climb to high. Leave the 
top dog to do what dogs do!



MTC-00012734

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has gone on long enough and cost way too much in both time 
and money. Settle the case and settle it now.



MTC-00012735

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this opportunity to voice my comments 
regarding the Microsoft settlement. Microsoft provided immense value 
to the industry by providing a set of open standards which permitted 
technology to be applied rather than theory. In this country we use 
the market to set standards and Microsoft built the standards that 
worked in the market. I appreciate you taking the time to hear my 
comments.
    Sincerely
    Fred Jarrett
    WA State Representative
    41st Legislative District



MTC-00012736

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25648]]

    I fail to see how consumers are negatively affected--Microsoft 
has driven the price of software down substantially for consumers. I 
can see how competitors have been forced to price their products 
more competitively and/or to become more innovative with their 
products



MTC-00012737

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In the interest of users of microsoft products investors and 
taxpayers lets resolve this issue quickly. I am tired of my taxes 
being used to pay attorneys to stifle innovation.
    Pat Doman



MTC-00012738

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support the sattlement and wish to bring the case to an 
end soon. This is a great chance allow more students using Microsoft 
software to learn new technology and let US continue stay on top. US 
gov. can help the looser but now it is too much we don t want to 
kill a horse and let a donkey win the race.



MTC-00012739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the entire lawsuit against MicroSoft was outrageous. It 
was something out of ATLAS SHRUGGED the government deciding that one 
man s ideas and products belong to the masses. WRONG my ideas and 
thoughts are mine. And I am not REQUIRED to share them with anyone. 
Before I do that I ll go on strike. Had MicroSoft had the sand they 
should have closed their doors and let the world live without what 
they developed and their proprietary knowledge and products. But 
apparently Bill Gates is not John Galt and I never expected him to 
be. But I think he should have given the world a lesson in how 
techonolgy would be without MicroSoft s various innovations and 
research.



MTC-00012740

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To be brief: too much valuable time and energy have been spent 
on a case whose outcome thus far benefits competitors and lawyers in 
a society that claims to value the competitive process. It sets a 
most dangerous precedent of intrusion and influence on the conduct 
of ordinary business affairs.
    Realizing that the damage done cannot be undone it is imperative 
to move on with a compromise solution . The States AGs are 
presumably free to continue to espouse their position leaving one to 
hope they will come to recognize its past time to bring a sorry 
event to an imperfect closure. No comment could be more telling than 
the foreign press who stand in amazement at the huge contradiction 
this trial represents and who also wonder at processes that aim to 
destroy an economic crown jewel.
    Thank you for the opportunity to express this view.



MTC-00012741

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly in favor of the settlement with Microsoft. It is a 
company that
    has been the leading factor in widespread computer use and the 
internet. I use many but not all of their products because they are 
the best on the market.



MTC-00012742

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case should be ended asap we need leadership to out of the 
recession.



MTC-00012743

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The best strength of Microsoft is that despite occasional 
missteps it methodically plods toward excellence and is more adept 
at it than most of its competitors. Microsoft has offered solid 
products at reasonable prices for many years. Microsoft seldom makes 
protracted missteps and I have confidence that their products will 
be there for me in the future. Some of Microsoft s competitors have 
tried to use the courts to undo their failures in the marketplace. 
It is the end users who ultimately decide who wins based on how a 
product fulfills their individual value system (features price 
service etc.). Microsoft does well because it is focused on 
satisfying end user value systems. Remaining competitively focused 
is a requirement (not an option) for any company to maintain end 
user allegiance in the information technology marketplace. It is 
time for Microsoft s competitors to stop trying to maintain or 
acquire market share via the courts. If they want to compete for the 
hearts and minds of the consumer they must do it with attention to 
their own products.



MTC-00012744

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    STOP- It is not too late. . . . As a consumer of Microsoft 
Products (about 16-17 years) I personaly have always found their 
products to very reasonably priced with adeqaute support. I have 
never agreed with my government in its attempt to penalize or to 
break up MS business. From my advantage point as a consumer it 
appears that other business in competion with MS finds that using my 
government as a tool to improve there business is a good thing. This 
exercise has cost my govenment lots of money and if continued will 
probably cost consumers who use MS products more money than if it 
had been left alone in the first place. I am tired of working hard 
and paying local/state/federal/etc./etc.etc TAXES and to watch it 
wasted on matters of this nature. Stop the Bleeding- appolgize and 
move on to something that really does effect the consumer--like 
Judicial system fuel prices energy costs TAXES.



MTC-00012745

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THE SETTLEMENT TERMS. THE GOVERMENT HAS 
ALLOWED ALL OF MICROSOFT S INVENTIONS TO BE GIVEN TO ANYONE WHO 
WANTS THEM. THIS IS COMPARABLE TO NOT ONLY SHARING THE PIE BUT BEING 
FORCED TO GIVE IT ALL AWAY! AT THE VERY LEAST LICENSING FEES SHOULD 
BE PAID TO MICROSOFT.



MTC-00012746

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a poor solution at best. The Government should leave 
Microsoft alone. A free market economy is self regulating. 
Government interference only makes things worse.



MTC-00012747

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the justice department should take the settlement and 
STOP WAISTING TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY. It seems that Microsoft 
is being unfairly attacked by the justice department. This is 
rediculous. Take the money and leave Microsoft alone. It seems to me 
that the Justice Department is just trying to get money from 
Microsoft because Bill Gates is so incredibley wealthy. Why doesn t 
the Justice Department go after other companies for monopolizing 
industries?? I m tired of hearing about this entire situation. 
Microsoft is not a government run company. It s a private company. 
Leave them alone already!!
    The justice department looks like the bad guy here. If people 
have a problem with buying Microsoft Windows because it has internet 
explorer on there and they can t take it off then I say to them DON 
T BUY IT! Netscape is readily available. Netscape is just whining 
because they want a piece of the pie too.
    Well they should get out there and work for it just like 
Microsoft. To Netscape I say QUIT BEING BABIES. .DO YOU WANT SOME 
CHEESE WITH YOUR WINE? Let s get over it already!! Take what money 
you are being offered from Microsoft because I think you are lucky 
your getting anything. I think they shouldn t give you a dime of 
there HARD EARNED money. The justice department is wasting our HARD 
EARNED money on this frivelous case. This should have never come 
this far. It s out of control.
    Quit while your ahead.

[[Page 25649]]



MTC-00012748

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attornet Hesse
    Once again I urge you to bring the full force of the Justice 
Department to effect a positive ruling on the settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Federal and State Governments. This attack 
against one of the most successful enterprises in our country s 
proud history has gone on much too long drained unestimal resources 
from needed government activities and severely damaged our nation s 
economy. Please please bring it to an end now. Bill Gates is no 
crook but Joel Klein and Janet Reno certainly need close attention.
    Regards
    Sumner Kibbe



MTC-00012749

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    It seems to me that the important segments of the Microsoft case 
are in agreement and therefore this issue needs to be ended. It has 
gone on long enough. I urge Judge Kotelly to approve this 
settlement.



MTC-00012750

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop wasting taxpayer money and settle the MSN case 
already--it appears they have agreed to the court order so what is 
taking so long?
    Thank you--
    a concerned citizen--
    [email protected]



MTC-00012751

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get this setteled immediately before more damage can be done to 
our economy. It is my belief that the real sin was failure to donate 
enough to the Clonton Era Democrats anyway. Stop this distruction 
NOW.



MTC-00012752

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The recent decision against Microsoft is grossly unfair to the 
co. and should be modified.



MTC-00012753

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get gov t. off the back of Microsoft! Dismiss this amoral 
case it is a travesty of justice. Who has done more for the American 
economy and employees?



MTC-00012754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The remaining States act contrary to the interest of the USA 
which needs the contributions of MSFT for the improvement of our 
economy and the maintenance of our technological leadership in the 
world. A quick settlement is in the public interest.



MTC-00012755

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement puts sufficient 
restraints on Microsoft. I think it is important that this case be 
settled and we can get on with it rather than continuing to string 
it out.



MTC-00012756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough!!! The government has been harassing Microsoft 
Corporation long enough! This company which has created thousands of 
millionaires among their employees and stockholders deserves to be 
free of intimidation by Attorneys General and the Justice 
Department. This company has standardized software codes throughout 
the growth period of the personal computer industry which has been a 
tremendous asset to computer users in the government and worldwide. 
Without the Microsoft standard there would be bedlam! It is time to 
let this company get back to work!
    Sincerely
    Rich Kay



MTC-00012757

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it s past time to get this travesty of justice behind 
us. Personally I don t think Microsoft or Bill Gates owes the 
government anything whatsoever. If it weren t for Mr. Gates and 
Microsoft common working people would not have computers in their 
homes. Maybe that s why the government is after him.
    If his competitors aren t as good as he is and can t compete he 
should not be punished for being good at what he does. Why isn t 
Alex Rodriguez punished for being a good baseball player? If the gov 
t wants to go after a monopoly they should go after their own Postal 
Service. That s the biggest monopoly in the world and the most 
inefficient. In areas where private industry has been allowed to 
compete with them such as Parcel Post or overnight delivery they 
have eaten their lunch. These Washington politicians and bearaucrats 
need to read Atlas Shrugged. We will cease to be a capitalist 
society if the successful keep being punished for being successful. 
They will say To hell with it. People like Mr. Gates are a treasure 
to humanity and should be treated as such especially by our own 
government. What would our founding fathers think of this fiasco!



MTC-00012758

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government allows monopolies to legally exist. Copyrights 
and patents and laws like the DMCA are government grants to monopoly 
that are hurting our freedom. Do away with the laws that hurt us. 
Bring back a free market and genuine capitalism that has allowed us 
to progress extremely far already but is now being destroyed.



MTC-00012759

From: Lou Leggett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:27pm
Subject: Conspircy of 9 State's Attorny General Against Microsoft
    In my opinion, the 9 AG's attempts to coerce Microsoft, extort 
money, and inhibit their ability to pursue business in an unfettered 
fashion, while using the guise of ``protecting the consumer'' is 
pure bunk! Other than Microsoft's competitors, to my knowledge, 
there has been no hue and cry from consumers claiming they were 
taken advantage of by MS. In fact, it's just the opposite. MS has 
contributed far more to our progress in software development, the 
economy and numerous other ways than all of the AG's put together 
could dream of.
    Perhaps you should look into the political aspirations of these 
9 AG's as the true reason this case is still alive.
    This is a frivolous pursuit and should be duly deposited in file 
#13.
    One man's opinion.
    Lou Leggett
    President
    Cortran Int'l, Inc.
    Orlando, FL 32836
    Tel. 407-352-5400
    Fax. 407-352-0320
    copy to: MS



MTC-00012760

From: cwilliambloom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:28pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft settlement
    We read constantly about how microsoft is more than willing to 
settle with all concerned in the litigation and still some still 
want more. The Microsoft company seems to be trying to offer a just 
settlement and it is beyond belief that some states can't come to 
terms with their excessive demands.
    How long and how far does some of these people want to go before 
they trash a good company that has given so much to our country and 
so many people.
    It is our hope that all these matters can be settled in due time 
and in an expedient manner.
    C.W. & F. E. Bloomfield
    Everett, WA



MTC-00012761

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:40pm

[[Page 25650]]

Subject: Microsoft
    Settle-settle-SETTLE!!!
    [email protected]



MTC-00012762

From: Ken McSwain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever it may concern:
    As a veteran computer user since 1984, and as a completely 
satisfied Microsoft product user, I urge the acceptance of 
Microsoft's offer to settle by providing computers to schools. It 
will be good for the schools, good for the children, good for the 
economy, and fair to Microsoft.
    The only ones who are complaining, and the consumers never have, 
are Microsoft's competitors and some soreheads who would rather have 
money for themselves than compputers for the schools. Do not delay 
this any longer. Our national economy is suffering because of it. 
Retirees portfolios are suffering because of it. Comsumers are happy 
with it. Settle it now without delay.
    Sincerely,
    Ken McSwain
    719 Kleewood Drive
    FULTON MO 65251
    (573) 642-0606



MTC-00012763

From: Sam Cranford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, In reading the proposed agreement 
against Microsoft, I would like to add that I disagree with 
Provision III. J. It is essential for Microsoft's competitors to 
have access to the full Windows and Office APIs, and to the file 
formats for MS Office.
    Without these, Microsoft will forever hold the upper hand in 
developing any application to run on their OS. This has been their 
key to their monopoly power, their method of devaluing competing 
products. If the competition could access these two aspects of the 
OS installed on more than 90% of the worlds PCs, then the world 
would benefit from more productive, more secure applications without 
also suffering from intolerable, hostile vendor lock-in. Let's not 
forget that Microsoft has arrived where they are, both in market 
share and legal trouble, by abusing their monopoly position. They 
must be forced to pay a price much higher than the proposed 
settlement, which will do virtually nothing to right the numerous 
wrongs that Microsoft has already committed. Only releasing the APIs 
and file formats will allow significant reversal of the existing 
monopoly.
    Thank you for considering the peoples' proposals,
    Sincerely,
    Samuel K. Cranford



MTC-00012764

From: robert delaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:42pm
Subject: -Loss to the public because the case was filed
    Compare this case to the Enron scandal!
    Enron took action that sent their price per share to near zero!
    Janet Reno filed an unnecessary case against Microsoft and sent 
their stock prices tumbling!
    Government filed a case against big tobacco and sent their stock 
prices tumbling!
    Enron had a lot of power and money!
    GOVERNMENT has nearly endless power and money!
    YOU tell ME, which has done more damage to the U.S. Citizen!
    Get GOVERNMENT off Microsoft's back!
    Sincerely,
    Robert F. Delaney
    Atlanta NE



MTC-00012765

From: Larry Bumgardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Punish Microsoft by requiring them to document ALL their Windows 
APIs. Do not allow them to keep or use any hidden ones for exclusive 
use by Microsoft applications.
    Additional punishments are certainly called for, but this would 
put competing application developers on a level playing field and 
bring some real competition into play.
    Disclaimer: I work for a software developer, but we do not 
develop applications software. . . we do system programming, more 
tightly related to the Operating system we may be working with, 
Windows included.
    Larry Bumgardner
    1203 N Gregson St
    Durham, NC 27701
    919 676-1991 x137



MTC-00012766

From: Jeremy Lassen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been an IT professional for 10 years, and have watched 
the Microsoft Monopoly grow and grow, with no relief in site. 
Currently, I work at the University of California, San Francisco 
where I run a number of computer labs. In my duties there, I have 
seen first hand the heavy handed powers of market coercion that 
Microsoft wields. Their most recent licensing schemes amount to 
blackmail, forcing us to pay for twice as much for a software 
product if we want any chance of having bugs fixed down the road. I 
have watched for years as Microsoft has abused its monopoly powers 
and eliminated competing companies from the market, going as far 
back as MS Dos 3.3 vs DR Dos 4.0.
    I would LOVE to deploy competing products, but the threat of 
file level incompatibilities for their office suite of products, and 
the threat of changing API's has repeatedly made it impossible for 
me to do so. From my perspective, the best remedy would be to open 
up the Windows API, and lock in the office suite file standards, and 
have a third party technical body, or government agency oversee and 
approve any extension to these standards.
    Thank you for taking my viepoint into account.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Lassen
    UCSF Library computing lab Manager



MTC-00012767

From: Gary Dunning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  1:59pm
Subject: Anti-Trust
    Time to stop the abuse of Government funds and time on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. Let enterprise proceed.



MTC-00012768

From: Gem Burke
To: Microsoft ATR,Ron Wyden,Gordon H Smith,Greg Walden. . . 
Date: 1/16/02  2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
cc Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Gorden Smith
Representative Greg Walden
Attorney General, State of Oregon
1810 Queens Branch Rd.
Rogue River, OR 97537
January 16, 2002
    Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    My name is Gem Burke and work in the communications industry as 
an engineer. I do not claim to be a computer expert or geek, 
although I probably know more about computers & software than the 
average user. I am simply a user of computers and their software and 
I would like a statement about the ?Microsoft Settlement?. I have 
tried reading at least some of the papers on this action and 
incorporate that with what seems to be happening in the real world. 
On this very day, I installed my tax program from Quicken and at the 
end of it Microsoft's Internet Explorer was installed on my 
computer. I wasn't asked, it wasn't an option. Then I was asked if I 
wanted to install AOL. So here it is January 16, 2002 and after all 
the denials of Microsoft, I'm still getting IE shoved down my throat 
whether I like it or not. They (Microsoft) are obviously not 
concerned about anything happening to them in court. This is not the 
first time Intuit has done this to me and complained to them about 
this then to no avail.
    I could tell you about the site on the internet I logged into 
that changed all my defaults from Netscape to IE or any of quite a 
number of other examples of blatant examples of monopolistic 
behavior but the point I thought important is even on this late 
date, Microsoft is continuing to muscle out competition confident 
that it will come through this proceedings unscathed.
    I work in the telephone business and one thing for sure, as AT&T 
was accused of being a monopoly and they were forced to breakup into 
a dozen smaller companies for anticompetiveness then, Microsoft 
should be broken up into 200 smaller companies because not only is 
Microsoft bigger and stronger,. he doesn't even try to hide the fact 
that he plans to muscle everyone else out. I'm not a lawyer but a 
blind man could see the blatant anticompetativeness of Microsoft and

[[Page 25651]]

the fact that he can use his resources to beat off anybody including 
the justice department.
    Thank You
    Gem Burke



MTC-00012769

From: Mike DeRosa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:08pm
Subject: regarding the Microsoft Settlement . . .
    I've read that you are accepting comments from personal computer 
users regarding the Microsoft anti trust case, and I'd like to make 
one or two, very briefly.
    I purchased my first personal computer in 1986, and have owned 
six others. I understand Microsoft's desire to keep it's programming 
code secret, but if they are going to supply the operating system 
for 9 out 10 computers they must be forced to allow users and 
vendors to have access to the basic parts of that operating system, 
just as a car owner or mechanic has a right to to know how an 
internal combustion engine works, and automotive manufacturers have 
an obligation to provide dealers with manuals and parts. It's almost 
that simple.
    Microsoft's practice of ``hiding'' parts of their programming 
code violates anti trust laws and must not be permitted. I don't 
advocate breaking up the company, I just want to see a level playing 
field, and forcing Microsoft to document it's ``applications 
programming interface'' (API's) would allow truly free enterprise in 
the software business.
    Thank you for listening, and I wish you good luck and wisdom in 
this very important case.
    Mike DeRosa
    Audio Rental Manager
    Scharff Weisberg, Inc.
    a provider of Professional
    Multimedia Solutions
    599 11th Avenue
    NY, NY 10036
    [email protected]



MTC-00012770

From: Clark, Nick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft vs. DOJ
    It is high time to ``get over it'' and get on with other 
business. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff and Massachusetts 
Attorney General Tom Reilly are blowing smoke up everyone's ass for 
their own political gains (by going public asking for help to make 
their cause just). This trial has become a circus event ever since 
the original judge made his negative views on Microsoft open to 
discussion. The American justice system is ludicrous when lawyers 
know how long they can bicker over anything they want not to mention 
when the courts allow those jackasses the ability to do so. We're 
spending the money of every states' taxpayers, not just Utah and 
Massachusetts taxpayers' money.
    I ask that everything against Microsoft become settled 
(finally). Keep an eye on them and when they start to get out of 
line then smack them. Enough has already been done.
    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-00012771

From: Gary Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:04pm
Subject: PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
    I believe the litigation against Microsoft is outrageous and as 
usual the end result will be that the only individuals benefiting 
from the case is the lawyers$$$$! I firmly believe we should do 
whatever is necessary to settle this case ASAP. I appreciate the 
opportunity to have my ``individual'' voice heard, however, when I 
really would have appreciated having my voice heard was when the 
charges were initially brought against Microsoft. Unfortunately, 
there was no interest at that critical time. If our elected 
representatives truly value our ``voices'' let them be heard when it 
really matters. Asking now is an after thought and it appears some 
of our representatives are doing some ``grandstanding'' for their 
personal political gain. That having been said--let's settle this 
thing and let our government officials and the American people move 
on to more important issues!
    Ginger Gardner



MTC-00012772

From: James Mitchell Ullman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    Greetings,
    This is not the first time I have emailed this address about the 
currently proposed settlement between Microsoft and the USDoJ. I am 
wanting to point out that we are listening and watching and that we 
feel that they are still trying to stiffle competition in the 
computer industry and crush standards that they do not own or 
developed themselves.
    Please take the time to read this article: http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
    Thank you 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-00012773

From: Leon Boncarosky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
21 Fineview Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011-8447
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to give you my comments on the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. This three-year case has had a debilitating effect on one of 
our nation's most outstanding companies, on the nation's technology 
sector, and on our economy. I recommend that you indorse the 
proposed settlement plan. The plan is fair, Microsoft will retain 
its present corporate configuration and be allowed to become more 
productive, and the Justice Department will now have an oversight 
responsibility to ensure that Microsoft does not return to its prior 
alleged anti-trust activities. Microsoft's competitors will now have 
access to its technology and Windows platforms. This is a fair and 
workable compromise.
    I believe it's in the best interests of our country to end this 
litigation. Please work to that end.
    Sincerely,
    Leon D. Boncarosky
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00012774

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel Microsoft should not benefit from having broken anti-
trust law. It has abused it monopoly position, and as a direct 
result MS Windows is ubiquitous on the desktop. This may or may not 
have been good for the consumer but we'll never have to opportunity 
to know what might have been if MS had not been so (unfairly) 
dominant.
    Remedies. I think that if product support is going to be 
discontinued then (windows 3.11, windows 95, etc.) then MS should be 
forced to release the source code for the discontinued product 
either to the public domain or to a separate company charged with 
providing support. I feel it is unreasonable to force consumers 
(whether private or corporate) to buy product upgrades merely to 
maintain there current application. If Ford or GM refused to provide 
parts for, or allow 3rd party companies to service discontinued 
automobiles there would be public outrage.
    Robert Cheetham
    RadiSys Corporation
    5959 Corporate Drive
    Houston
    TX 77546
    713-541-8267



MTC-00012775

From: Speare,Geoff
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    This will be a short letter, as I'm sure you have many to go 
through. Let me say up front that as a computer user, programmer, 
and IT professional, I feel very strongly that the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement will do nothing to punish past monopolistic 
practices, or to prevent future violations of anti-trust law.
    Most importantly, what the settlement fails to address is that 
Microsoft is /already/ entrenched in a dominant, monopolistic 
position, achieved in large part through unfair business practices. 
Creating a Technical Committee may (or may not) help with future 
problems, but does nothing to fix what has already transpired.

[[Page 25652]]

    Lastly (for this letter; I do not pretend that I am addressing a 
majority of the problems with the settlement), I would point out 
that much of Microsoft's monopoly is maintained through mechanisms 
not mentioned in the settlement. For example, Microsoft Word is the 
dominant word processing software mainly because it's file format is 
proprietary and controlled by Microsoft--and changed frequently, so 
that no other program can reliably use it. If a standard file format 
were enforced, competing products would have a chance to co-exist 
and interoperate with Word; something that just cannot happen today.
    I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this 
settlement and seek stronger action against Microsoft.
    Geoff Speare
    [email protected]



MTC-00012776

From: naaayaan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:22pm
Subject: My view As a consumer As well As Stockholder.
    TO WHOM SO IT MAY CONCERN
    Hon. Attorney General,
    The Microsoft lawsuit should settle as soon as possible. I 
understand that management harmed Netscape but that corporation was 
sold at premium. Now in future we should have better government 
oversight that nor microsoft or any large corporation harmed 
emerging corporation, or individual enterprenurship in this country 
which is good for the country. At the sametime this country is 
becoming litigatig society which harms corpoation like Microsoft, 
Physicians, Consulting firms or any small or large business that 
harms the nation. We are producing more attornys at the cost of 
innovation, enterprenurship, small and large businesses and 
scientist and technologist. this litigating society will be the 
downfall of U.S.A .
    Therefore, settelment is the best interest for the country and 
we can progress.
    Sincerely,
    NAYAN DALAL.



MTC-00012777

From: michael govern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When you pay less than $100 for an OS that will last the life of 
the PC, I'd say that is a good deal. The No Justice Department 
should have been on alert to the likes of Enron instead of Microsoft 
for all of these years.



MTC-00012778

From: Charles LeDuc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I encourage the U.S. Department of Justice to protect the 
interests of the citizens of this country and continue prosecuting 
the antitrust case against Microsoft. We've already achieved victory 
against Microsoft on this case: now is not the time to abandon it. A 
settlement at this point amounts to a political payoff to a major 
supporter of the new administration.
    Sincerely,
    Charles LeDuc
    2738 Fairlane Dr.
    Doraville, GA 30340
    [email protected]



MTC-00012779

From: Robert Schroeder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer, that has worked with Microsoft 
products as well as on the java platform. It seems to me that there 
is an enormous misunderstanding of the software industry and an 
outdated use of the antitrust law. There are new issues that were 
left completely unaddressd as far as I can tell, and now it appears 
that this costly trial is taking another bad turn.
    The overwhelming factor in Microsoft's 'monopoly' is the so-
called network effect, something they took advantage of by being the 
most attractive to buyers. It is a natural state for Software 
Operating Systems. The consumers are much better off if most people 
use a single operating system, and most developers can code to a 
single api, as coding for two almost doubles the work.
    Some are suggesting that Microsoft's API should then be locked 
down, so other people can copy it. There are several reasons that 
this is a bad idea. That API is changing, or rather, growing as 
quickly as the software industry is progressing, which at this 
moment is bigger than it ever has in any period in the past (and 
much bigger than the during the .com vaporware era). Microsoft needs 
to update its software to reflect this, and they need to do that 
quickly, and for a variety of reasons. It is also important that 
they are able to fix poor design, something they should finally be 
able to do with the versioning built into their new software.
    By all means have Microsoft hire a special overseer to make sure 
they are in compliance, but please do not hamstring the software 
industry in the process. We are suffering enough in this economy as 
it is.
    Thank you,
    Robert Schroeder
    5438 California Street
    San Francisco, CA 94118
    (415) 876-4151



MTC-00012780

From: Don Weide
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please work for an early settlement of the Microsoft dispute, 
rather than continual, endless litigation, which will increase the 
cost of software to the consumers and further enrich the lawyers 
involved.
    I have used many Microsoft products and I feel the company has 
treated me fairly. I am especially pleased to see that under the 
proposed settlement, Microsoft would have given disadvantaged public 
schools over $1 billion in funding, software, services and training.
    I feel that punishing those most successful is contrary to what 
has made our nation unique and great. As a member of ``The greatest 
generation'', and still self employed at age 83, please conclude 
this long overdue problem and help our nation recover from its 
recent shock-wave.
    A rapid and fair settlement is certainly preferable to 
protracted litigation.
    God Bless America
    Major Don O. Weide, USMCR(ret)



MTC-00012781

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead. Yet OpenGL support still 
survived due to the interest of software developers and the support 
of third party 3D hardware manufacturers. This latest move by 
Microsoft to acquire core 3D technology patents would finish the 
hatchet job, granting Microsoft the power to force third party 3D 
hardware manufacturers to drop support for OpenGL, and ultimately 
stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Jason Asbahr
    Game Developer



MTC-00012782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am in favor of the proposed antitrust settlementI in the 
Mircosoft case. The provisions of the agreement are reasonable, fair 
to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of 
Appeals ruling. Enough time and expense have have been put toward 
this litigation, let move beyond it.
    T.J. MCDonald
    Louisvile, KY



MTC-00012783

From: Steve Heaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25653]]

    To whom it may concern,
    As a US citizen and a member of the high tech industry (I work 
as a computer consultant) I am more than tired of the Anti-trust 
case brought by the US government againt Microsoft. My understanding 
of the current settlement is that it is more than fair to all 
parties invloved. The government needs to move to get it finished. 
The 9 states that are holding out are clearly doing so in their and 
a few of their constituents best interest. The court system in the 
US is not designed to be used as a method by some companies to 
hamstring an able competitor! That would be unfair business 
practice. . . and yet that is exactely what has been happening. 
Settle the case and get the hell off of Microsoft's back!!!
    Thanks
    Steve Heaney
    Houston Texas.



MTC-00012784

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a citizen I am very concerned about Microsoft's ability to 
continue to function as a monoploy in the software and operating 
system markets. I strongly urge the DOJ to pursue the complete 
disclosure and public documentation of all Windows API function and 
parameters and file format specifications for its Office software. 
Allowing Microsoft to maintain this information as secret is 
limiting the competetiveness of the software markets and hurting 
consumers.
    Also, I urge the DOJ to force Microsoft to stop forcing computer 
system distributers and marketers into a restrictive licensing 
policy. Microsofts current licensing policy is limiting consumer 
choice and market competition. Computer distributers must be allowed 
to provide consumers with a choice at the point of sale, to market 
computers with alternative Operating Systems in a possible multi-
boot environment.
    Budd Hirons.



MTC-00012785

From: TRAN, QUYNH
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/
index1.html



MTC-00012786

From: Mark Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
184 Riley Street
Dundee, MI 48131-1069
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Sir:
    As I read more about the Microsoft settlement, I can't help but 
think that the government has more important issues to focus on. 
While there are intense international problems brewing daily, we 
spend more resources on litigation against the free market in 
America. Not only has Microsoft been extremely helpful in many 
areas, but they have also made a great deal of concessions in this 
recent agreement with the intent of moving forward.
    Having grown up with a father that was blind, I have been 
particularly impressed by the work that Microsoft has done with the 
handicapped. Microsoft helped to enrich my father's life and always 
bent over backwards to provide assistance when needed. Without 
Microsoft's innovations my father would have never been able to use 
a computer. They provide help in so many areas and for so many 
causes, and people tend to miss hearing about these issues. Now that 
Microsoft has been under fire, they again have agreed to work with 
the IT sector in moving on and holding our place in the global 
market. They have agreed to make changes in licensing, marketing and 
even design. On top of this, they have agreed to be monitored by a 
committee the entire time. This is definitely a step toward a more 
unified IT sector. Please help Microsoft provide users with superior 
products by continuing to innovate in this highly competitive global 
market. Let us support this settlement and help our technology 
industry get back to business.
    At stake is the USA's position as the number one technology 
innovator in the world. This is part of what makes America great, 
and why my father, whose blindness was caused by exposure during the 
Manhattan Project, appreciated the attention Microsoft gave to his 
needs.
    My biggest fear is the needs of actual users have been 
subjugated to the wants of greedy competitors who rather spend money 
on litigation and lobbying than research & development.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Walsh



MTC-00012787

From: Delmar Knudson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very much against the microsoft proposal that they give 
their old equipment to schools across the country and thereby hurt 
their competition unfairly again.
    I have nothing against Microsoft donating a huge amount of 
software to charitable organizations in countries that can't affort 
any equipment whatsoever (like Afghanistan).
    Delmar H. Knudson, M.D.
    1313 Williams St. #1005
    Denver, CO. 80218
    [email protected]



MTC-00012788

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    We support the provisions of the proposed antitrust settlement. 
They are fair and reasonable and well appreciated by consumers. Only 
competitors oppose the settlement, and it appears to us that they 
blame Microsoft because they themselves weren't stronger and more 
effective competitors.They seem to be shifting blame, and in the 
process have already hurt consumers. Please complete the proposed 
settlement agreement. Consumers like the agreement.
    Thank You.
    Ruth and Al Paige.
    [email protected], [email protected]



MTC-00012789

From: ralph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement . . . about time !
    Hi Folks
    several thoughts on settlement with Micro Soft funny how it 
seems sometimes GOV has stifled entrepeneurship funny how 
overzealous anti trust people can create no win situations
    I'm glad there is a settlement
    And the lawyers get richer. . . . . . .
    thank you
    Ralph Reeder



MTC-00012790

From: Neils Christoffersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to voice my concern about the Microsoft Settlement. 
Let me give you a little background about myself first. I'm 
currently a Senior pursuing a B.S. in Computer Science at a 
university in South Dakota. I am also employed at a local dot-com 
company, where I design and develop applications for the web.
    The activities of MS in recent years is extremely disturbing to 
me and my colleagues. The company has repeatedly taken action to 
force smaller companies out of their respected markets. The latest 
turn of events came when MS bought many of SGI's 3D patents. Big 
deal you say. Well, this basically allows them to lock up these 
technologies, not licensing them to hardware companies that don't 
agree with MS. This could spell bad news for any company who sells 
non-DirectX products.
    Of even more concern is the continually lack of security in 
Microsoft's products. The first that comes to mind is Internet 
Information Services (IIS). Since it's initial release, IIS has had 
several huge security flaws, and even more minor ones. Last I 
checked they were averaging about 2 new bugs being discovered every 
month. These bugs range from ones that allow web users to see the 
(proprietary) code behind a web site [code that could contain 
sensitive information, such as passwords, code which should not be 
seen by the public] to one that allowed IIS to become infected with 
a virus, and constantly search for new victims. The only way to 
avoid these security faults now is to constantly keep up with 
updates released by Microsoft. Now, I only maintain a couple of 
machines with MS software installed on them, and it's a pain to keep 
up on the latest patches and fixes. I can't imagine hosting a data 
center with potentially thousands of computers and having to 
continually update them.

[[Page 25654]]

    THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!
    I ask you, no, beg you, to not give Microsoft another slap on 
the wrist. A fine is nothing to this company.
    Thanks for your time.
    Neils Christoffersen
    [email protected]>
    CreditSoup Development
    http://www.CreditSoup.com/



MTC-00012791

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I feel I have received nothing but benefits and 
value from Microsoft Corp. I also feel that all these lawsuits are 
the results of the lobbying power of Microsoft competitors and are 
just sour grapes.
    Tim Lederle



MTC-00012792

From: Chris LeFebvre
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    In regards to the DOJ's case against Microsoft. I've been in the 
PC software and hardware business since there was a PC and I've seen 
Microsoft break or bend to the breaking point every agreement 
they've ever had with the government and all the while driving 
competitors out of business and stifling any vision of innovation 
but their own. Also making unilateral changes to their end user and 
corporate license agreements that are nothing short of Orwellian and 
all the while foisting bug ridden software with major security flaws 
off on the unwitting public. With it's millions / billions of 
dollars in revenue annually Microsoft has gotten to be a law unto 
itself with no regard for the consumer or in many cases the 
government since it feels no compunction about breaking prior 
agreements when it suits the Microsoft Management. I would ask you 
not to settle for a simple slap on the wrist, I truly believe that 
breaking up Microsoft would not work to the benefit of the consumer 
or address the issues that have brought us to this point. I would 
think that strong oversight by knowledgeable independent industry 
leaders who could take immediate action should Microsoft break any 
of their agreements or show further wrong doing would be the best 
course of action.
    Sincerely,
    Chris LeFebvre
    Programmer & Consultant



MTC-00012793

From: Daniel Raymer
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is in no doubt that Microsoft is a very strong monopoly. But 
the terms of the settlement for their actions as such leave much to 
be desired. In essence, to the common man, it is like being caught 
robbing a bank, being told not to do it again, and then let off the 
hook. These actions cannot go unpunished. Microsoft continues to 
strong arm consumers even to this day. If I ask to buy a Dell 
computer with no OS on it, I still have to pay for a Microsoft OS 
license even though I do not get one. If I ask for Mozilla, Opera, 
or Netscape web browser to be installed instead of Internet 
Explorer, I cannot get those choices. In the home PC market where MS 
holds 95% of the OS market, I am not allowed a choice. When a choice 
does appear, i.e. using DR-DOS 7 or Linux, Microsoft refuses to 
allow a large amount of software to run on it. Between Windows, 
Office, and Internet Explorer, I am forced to stay with MS because 
of my lack of choice elsewhere. Please do something that is more 
applicable to this situation. The punishment should fit the crime.
    Daniel Raymer
    Unix Systems Administrator
    InterCall
    Desk: 706-634-4396
    Fax: 706-634-3807
    PCS: 706-773-1416
    [email protected]



MTC-00012794

From: White David
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft poised to extend its monopoly
    To whom it may concern:
    With the bid to purchase $63M worth of SGI's intellectual 
property, Microsoft will soon be in the position to force graphics 
card vendors to drop support for OpenGL. Currently, OpenGL is the 
only graphics API truly competing against Microsoft's DirectX. If 
Microsoft is allowed to effectively crush OpenGL, then Microsoft's 
monopoly will be extended yet again. As a voting constituent, I urge 
you to block/disallow the proposed purchase by Microsoft of SGI's 
APIs.
    Concerned,
    David White
    David White
    [email protected]



MTC-00012795

From: Chris Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let Microsoft destroy our way of computing. 
Microsoft hurts Java technology which in turn hurts many hundreds of 
thousands of Java developers. Just because they want developers to 
migrate to their way of programming. Please do not let them continue 
their malicious ways. I do not wish to see Microsoft out of 
business. Unlike Bill Gates, I like to see competitive business. I 
want Microsoft to play by the rules and not bully everyone around so 
they will conform.
    Chris Stewart



MTC-00012796

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:47pm
Subject: Settlement
    We believe it is time to settle this matter that has dragged on 
too long. The settlement under consideration seems appropriate and 
fair to all parties.
    Bill & Donna Yaw
    Palm Desert, Ca



MTC-00012797

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel sorry that the litigants of this trial cannot keep up 
with the advances made by Microsoft, but when has it been in the 
public interest for any government body in this country to intervene 
in private enterprise. I can understand it when natural resources 
are involved but in the case where a company is providing products 
that can and are being duplicated in other forms then let them 
compete.
    C.H. Schmoll



MTC-00012798

From: Larry Slavicek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice Department should have NEVER prosecuted Microsoft. 
The case should be closed without further penalties.
    Lawrence Slavicek
    West Chicago, IL



MTC-00012799

From: Richard Driscoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Please permit the following to be entered as part of the public 
comment period concerning the Microsoft case. As the director of a 
small, not-for-profit arts council, I must always watch the bottom 
line. It has been my feeling for a number of years that Microsoft 
forces me into an all-or-nothing deal every time I must make careful 
consideration of my agency's evolving technology needs. I am forced 
to buy what I do not need and, at the peril of compromising a very 
imbedded operating system, compelled to remove those unwanted 
programs in order not to have my hard drive uselessly gobbled up.
    Please consider seriously the following constraints upon 
Microsoft:
    1. Prevent an extension of Microsoft's monopoly by placing 
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.
    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.
    3. Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body.
    Thank you.
    Richard G. Driscoll
    Executive Director
    Community Arts Partnership
    116 North Cayuga Street
    Ithaca, NY 14850
    607-273-5072 (w), 273-4816 (f)
    www.artspartner.org
    www.ithacaevents.com



MTC-00012800

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25655]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please maintain the government's settlement with Microsoft as 
already decided. Keeping this case open serves no useful purpose for 
Microsoft shareholders or the general populace. It's in the best 
interests of all concerned to honor the settlement that has been 
made and move forward from here.
    Thank you.



MTC-00012801

From: John A. Ouzts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Windows is a stultifying monopoly. Open up the Windows APIs.
    Then go after Microsoft's illegally gotten, excessive retained 
earnings.
    John Ouzts



MTC-00012802

From: London.Crockett@ scottforesman.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:06pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am quite troubled by the proposed settlement to the Microsoft 
case. It appears to do little to actually restrain Microsoft's 
flagrantly anticompetitive and monopolistic practices, nor remedy 
the damage done to consumers and Microsoft's competitors. Worst of 
all, it appears to me to offer Microsoft little reason to comply 
with the already meager punishment the settlement demands.
    I hope that the court will consider remedies that have the teeth 
to get the job done so that the software industry can become a truly 
competitive environment which routinely births innovative, 
interesting and useful products without fear of Microsoft 
``embracing and extending'' Windows to shut out the real innovators 
from their innovations. Already, even in the shadow of the judgement 
ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly, Microsoft appears to be on 
verge of forcing its way into control over the Internet media 
market, effectively killing the innovative products from Real and 
Apple. One has to wonder if anyone will bother developing the truly 
interesting new applications which have driven our economy over the 
last decade if their efforts will soon be overwhelmed by Microsofts 
preditory practices. I hope the court will prevent that from 
happening.
    Salon.com's Scott Rosenberg has writen an interesting article on 
the case, in which he proposes that Microsoft be required to release 
its all of its APIs so that competitors can make functional 
competing products (see: http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/
16/competition/index.html). His argument makes sense to me.
    Thank you for your time.
    London Crockett
    (This email does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions 
of my employer)



MTC-00012803

From: Chris Durant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:I believe strongly that the Microsoft 
Corporation is one of America's greatest assets. It is a company 
that provides constantly improving products that help make tens of 
millions of people more productive, happier, and richer. We live in 
an increasingly global economy. When the U.S. Government attacks and 
tries to cripple a domestic company that has become ``too'' 
successful, there is no shortage of foreign competition that will 
gladly step in to take market share, unencumbered by governments 
with beliefs in forced ``equality'' between corporations, regardless 
of the value or contributions that the companies make. Microsoft has 
never harmed me. Its products have enhanced my life tremendously. If 
Microsoft is a monopoly, why does it continually improve its 
products and lower its prices? For the good of the American economy 
and consumers everywhere, please settle with Microsoft as soon as 
possible. Doesn't the U.S. Government have better things to do than 
fight one of the best things that has ever happened to this country?
    Sincerely,



MTC-00012804

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I am writing this as a citizen concerned with the economy of 
this country. Please settle the antitrust suit as quickly as 
possible and let Microsoft get back to doing the business that they 
do best.
    Also, any attouney generals that want to drag this out any 
longer should be reminded to listen to the people of their states. I 
am ashamed that Wisconsin attouney general Doyle let his greed get 
in the way of common sense.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence M. Kolden



MTC-00012805

From: william frankl
To: [email protected].?@inetgw
Date: 1/16/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft dettlement.
To: Department of Justice:
    SETTLE!!! Get off Microsoft's back and let our high-tech economy 
recover!!!
    William S.Frankl, MD
    536 Moreno Road
    Wynnewood, PA.19096



MTC-00012806

From: Charlie Rehor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace. This is just one more example of Microsoft's 
monopoly power, which will not be curtailed in any reasonable way by 
the government's (gift) settlement. Microsoft is a convicted 
monopolist, and should be punished both for the actions for which 
they have been convicted, and to prevent future abuses.
    Thank you,
    Charlie Rehor



MTC-00012807

From: Mr. RaggySocks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement is weak
    Dear Honorable Sirs/Madam:
    I am not opposed to all things Microsoft. However, time and 
again, I feel that I have been harmed as a user, a developer, and an 
administrator by Microsoft's practices in protecting its desktop 
monopoly and leveraging it to other markets.
    Microsoft has a history of preventing other software from 
working properly with its operating system. DR-DOS is a notable 
example. And any user can also tell you how their Netscape, or 
Realplayer or any other piece of software that Microsoft competes 
with, suddenly fails to work after they have installed a Windows 
update.
    Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly eliminated choice long ago, 
and it is now difficult to find a competitive product. Due to this, 
I am skeptical of the efficacy of the proposed revised final 
settlement. I also feel that the revised final settlement isn't 
effective in preventing Microsoft from further leveraging its 
desktop monopoly. I do not oppose Microsoft's .Net initiatives, as 
the competition will be useful in forcing both .Net and Java 2 
Enterprise Edition to improve. But allowing them to integrate their 
efforts with their desktop monopoly feels like a mistake.
    When AT&T was broken up, there weren't any competitors left in 
its market. The act of splitting AT&T created competition instantly. 
In the same way, the barrier to entry is high in all markets 
tangential to the PC desktop and I believe the situation warrants a 
similar remedy.

[[Page 25656]]

    Since the possibility of a breakup of Microsoft has surfaced, 
many critics have stated that Microsoft is the engine of the 
technology economy. However, recent evidence shows that the economic 
impact of a breakup will not be catastrophic. Windows XP has not, 
and is not, going to jumpstart the economy.
    I believe a key benefit of splitting up Microsoft is the 
elimination of their monopoly on the desktop. Ensure that the 
companies follow a reference standard that they agree to. Allow them 
to add functionality so long as it doesn't interfere with their 
reference standard for the operating system. In this way, they can 
be forced to adhere to standards and to create compatible systems. 
This will create competition, fostering innovation, and benefiting 
customers while minimizing harm.
    Though I doubt that a breakup will be agreed upon, I must insist 
that the current proposal does not go far enough to protect 
customers.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this case.
    Sincerely,
    S. Cheng



MTC-00012808

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:11pm
Subject: MSFT Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    My perspective is that litigation should cease. Our economy 
needs encouragement, improvisation, with innovation, not litigation 
that drags on. As a retired teacher, I do not like the fact that 
todays' children are being denied the generous supply of software & 
hardware that MSFT is willing to supply our schools.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Seay



MTC-00012809

From: Robert Boggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables, Microsoft has repeatedly abused its position in the 
software market to further its own agendas. The release of products 
such as the latest versions of both Windows and Office only look to 
continue this pattern of predatory behavior. Through the use of 
proprietary file formats and forced incompatibilities with older 
versions of the same software, they force users to upgrade when 
doing so might otherwise be unnecessary.
    In addition, Microsoft has recently acquired the patents to 
several key features in of the Open GL architecture, a 3D graphics 
technology. Considering Microsoft's pattern of behavior regarding 
technologies that are superior to its own, (Embrace, extend, or 
extinguish) this situation is potentially dangerous. Dangerous 
because it grants Microsoft significant leverage over the 
independent 3D hardware manufacturers who are currently supporting 
the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, OpenGL.
    In the past, Microsoft has attempted to modify other 
technologies to suit its own needs and at the same time lock out 
potential competition. A good example of this is the attempt to 
modify Sun's Java. If you recall, Sun won that case against them and 
Microsoft, rather than support Java as it was intended, has dropped 
in-house development of it altogether. The results of this are yet 
to be seen, but many third party developers are second guessing 
their need to support an important technology like Java because 
Microsoft no longer is.
    There are many other examples of this behavior that cannot be 
overlooked, but would take pages to cover in any depth. So I will 
leave you with those two and advise you to look to Open source and 
alternative software advocacy sites for more evidence as there is a 
great deal of evidence to be found in the case against Microsoft.
    As an IT professional, I urge you to not take this case too 
lightly and let them off with a simple slap on the wrist.
    Thank you
    Robert Boggs.



MTC-00012810

From: Sylvia Moestl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled already. It's already 
caused more than enough distruption for the economy, and a fast 
settlement is what we need now.
    Regards,
    Sylvia Moestl



MTC-00012811

From: jabien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:13pm
Subject: let settlement stand
    As a voting tax payer I am putting my two cents worth in on the 
Justice Department and Microsoft settlement. The parties that worked 
out this settlement have already put 4 years into it. So let it 
stand and we can move on. Just because some states can not agree 
does not mean it is not a good agreement. It seems to me the states 
that are not in agreement do have another agenda besides protecting 
the consumer. When the state of California is willing to do the 
financial backing of the other states in order to carry this on, and 
California happens to be the home state of Sun and Oracle. I do 
question where the attorney general offices of those states interest 
really lies. In the time of budget short falls is the average tax 
payer aware of were their tax dollars are going.When you read in the 
paper that California is the only state that has allowed a Class 
Action Law Suit from being settled that would have benefited the 
poor school district. And the fact that class action law suits only 
benefit the lawyers. The average buyer of Microsoft software would 
get just 10.00 back if the lawyers have their way.The whole idea of 
carrying on with the legal entanglement does not make common sense.



MTC-00012812

From: Betty J Huckestein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Gentlemen:
    Please agree to a Microsoft settlement. Let this wonderful 
American Company get on with it's corporate life. Microsoft has done 
more for the PC user than anyone else. They should be commended, not 
harassed. Let's settle this and let them get on with their business.
    Sincerely
    Betty & Dick Huckestein



MTC-00012813

From: George Hagerty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing in favor of the settlement the Dept. of Justice has 
reached with Microsoft. I am a self-employed CPA and a Microsoft 
shareholder. I have followed the case closely over the last several 
years. During this time, I have read the trial transcripts, the 
briefs, the court opinions, and most other commentary on the case.
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement closely mirrors the Court 
of Appeals decision and makes reasonable inferences on how the Court 
would rule on things it did not consider. I especially like 
Assistant Attorney General Charles James's recent comment to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee about how a mythology has grown up about 
this case. The Court found violations, but many other claimed 
violations were thrown out. The proposed settlement of the nine 
litigating states, in contrast, bears no relation to the Court's 
decision, and simply seems to want to destroy Microsoft.
    George E. Hagerty
    George Hagerty & Company
    100 Jericho Quadrangle Suite 236
    Jericho, NY 11753
    http://www.georgehagertyco.com/
    (516) 942-8520
    Fax (516) 932-6050



MTC-00012814

From: Luminescent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it,

[[Page 25657]]

and allowed Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Chris Nelson
    Game Developer



MTC-00012815

From: Peter J. Cacioppi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs
    I forward the following Scott Rosenburg article from Salon.com. 
I agree with it entirely.
    Jan. 16, 2002 ] The personal computer industry may be in its 
worst slump in history, but you wouldn't know it by following the 
news from the processor wars. Over the past two years, Intel and AMD 
have unleashed an incredible competitive cycle in Silicon Valley. In 
case you missed it, last week these two chip companies offered 
dueling releases of new flagship processors: Intel unveiled its 
fastest Pentium 4 yet, running at 2.2 gigahertz and built with a new 
.13 micron process that crams even more transistors into an even 
smaller space. AMD, extending the huge success and popularity of its 
Athlon line and the Athlon's most recent and powerful incarnation, 
Athlon XP, announced the XP 2000--a chip that actually runs at 1.67 
gigahertz but, third-party tests show, nearly keeps up with the 2.2 
ghz Pentium 4 in most tasks (and even surpasses it in some). What's 
going on here is simple: Good old-fashioned competition drives 
engineers to continue to work miracles. Intel, the market-dominating 
behemoth, has always pushed new, improved products out the door 
faster -and dropped prices more readily--when it feels the breath of 
a credible competitor on its neck. For many years the competition 
was feeble, but that changed when AMD's Duron and Athlon chips began 
giving Intel a run for its money--and, for a time in 2001, actually 
bested Intel for the fastest personal-computer chip title. Today, 
these two companies keep spurring each other on, and consumers win 
big. For most of us, that's all we need to know: Computers keep 
getting faster and cheaper. The details are of interest only to the 
legions of hardware nuts, high-performance system geeks and chip-
overclocking fans who flock to the Web's hardware review sites. 
Right? Well, the gigahertz specs may indeed be only geek fodder, but 
the other details of the Intel-AMD rivalry should be of keen 
interest to a much bigger crowd. That's because the competitive heat 
driving the processor market puts the relative frigidity of another 
part of the computer business into bold relief. I refer, of course, 
to the business of designing personal-computer operating systems--a 
business that Microsoft has dominated for years and that, according 
to the confirmed verdict of our federal courts, it now monopolizes.
    What if Microsoft were challenged as strongly on its home turf 
as AMD is now challenging Intel? What innovations, improvements and 
price reductions would the public enjoy that it doesn't, today, 
thanks to the Microsoft monopoly? This is the big question that 
hangs over the continuing struggle to find a meaningful outcome to 
the endless Microsoft antitrust saga. And the AMD/Intel analogy is 
worth pursuing to try to find some answers. Microsoft and its 
supporters, of course, maintain that the monopoly label is 
misplaced. After all, can't you buy a Macintosh without buying 
Microsoft Windows? Can't you obtain a PC and fire it up with any of 
a dozen versions of Linux or other Unix-style operating systems? 
Sure you can--and each of those operating-system alternatives has 
its partisans. But for use by individuals on their personal 
desktops, Microsoft Windows holds the overwhelming market share--by 
nearly every estimate, over 90 percent. Is that simply because 
Windows is superior to the alternatives? There are certainly people 
who believe that; and, to be sure, with the release of Windows XP 
last year, Microsoft finally moved its flagship operating system off 
the aging and increasingly unstable code base it had inherited from 
its infancy and onto the relatively more reliable Windows NT/Windows 
2000 core. But how much faster might Microsoft have achieved that 
improvement if it was racing a tough competitor? And how much more 
incentive might the company have to produce more secure, less virus-
vulnerable products today? The historical record is quite clear (and 
the antitrust trial record is just as clear): The central reason 
Windows has maintained and extended its market share over the years 
is not product superiority but a concept economists call ``lock-
in.'' Once you have all your data and all your software applications 
on one operating system or ``platform,'' moving to a different one 
is painful--it takes time and effort and money (as economists say, 
your ``switching cost'' is high). Over the years Microsoft has not 
had to push harder and faster to improve Windows because it knew 
that its customers were unlikely to make a fast switch to a 
competitor. Now, that picture would be very different if you could 
somehow reduce or eliminate those switching costs. What if competing 
operating systems could seamlessly and interchangeably run the same 
programs and utilize the same data files that Windows does?
    Here's where the Intel/AMD analogy comes in handy. These 
manufacturers compete to provide chips that can run the same 
computer programs--known loosely as ``x86 compatible'' code--and 
that retain compatibility with hardware like expansion boards and 
peripheral devices. If you needed to write different versions of 
each piece of software and manufacture different versions of each 
piece of accompanying hardware--one that would work with Intel's 
chips and one that would work with AMD's--the whole competitive 
market would disappear. The weaker player (presumably AMD) would 
vanish and--presto!--Intel would have a monopoly as tough as 
Microsoft's.
    This relatively level playing field in the x86-compatible 
processor business did not come about by sheer happenstance. The 
semiconductor industry is marked by a Byzantine pattern of patent 
cross-licensing agreements; they provide permanent employment for 
legions of lawyers, and laymen seek to understand them only at great 
peril. What's important about them, however, is not how they came 
about but that they work. Now that the federal courts are trying to 
figure out an effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly 
powers, the competition between Intel and AMD provides a valuable 
model. How would one go about enabling Microsoft's rivals to compete 
with it as effectively as AMD is competing with Intel?
    The key here is something known as the Windows API (or 
``applications programming interface'') -- the set of instructions 
that Windows programs use to ``talk to'' the operating system. The 
Windows API has long been a murky issue: Microsoft has always 
provided some information to independent developers--it has to if 
third-party Windows programs are going to work. But Microsoft can 
and does muck around with the API, changing things that break 
competitors' products, anytime it wants to. And rumors have long 
buzzed, without ever being nailed down, that Microsoft's own 
developers take advantage of so-called hidden APIs that non-
Microsoft coders can't use. The Justice Department's proposed 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft 
do more to open up its APIs to competitors. But the fine print makes 
it clear that Microsoft could pretty much continue with business as 
usual. A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft 
to standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications (another key to Microsoft's 
monopoly ``lock-in'')--with the express goal of allowing competitors 
to build Windows software applications, and operating systems, that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field. Such a plan would require 
careful oversight and enforcement, since Microsoft could easily 
engage in all manner of foot-dragging. If Microsoft set out to be 
uncooperative, it could release the API information slowly, in 
deliberately confusing ways, or in a ``Good Soldier Svejk'' fashion 
-assiduously following the letter of the court's order while 
flagrantly violating its spirit. (There's precedent here: This is 
precisely how Microsoft behaved during the trial when it told the 
court that, sure, it would supply a version of Windows with Internet 
Explorer removed from its guts, but gee, sorry, then Windows 
wouldn't work.) Now, I can already hear the howls from the Microsoft 
corner that this plan is evil and un-American because it forces 
Microsoft to give up some of its intellectual property. Well, yes. 
Microsoft is in court as a repeat offender; the current antitrust 
suit, in which a federal district court and an appeals court have 
both affirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that it has abused 
its monopoly powers, arose out of the failure of a previous consent-
decree settlement of an earlier antitrust case.

[[Page 25658]]

At some point, having repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs 
to pay a price, or it will continue with its profitably 
anticompetitive ways. There's no reason to think the Justice 
Department's proposed settlement will work any better than the 
consent decree of last decade did. And financial penalties can 
hardly wound a company that is sitting on a cash hoard of tens of 
billions of dollars. But intellectual property--that's something 
Bill Gates and his team really care about. Requiring them to divulge 
some of it in order to restore competition in the software market 
might actually get them to change the way they operate. With 
Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized, documented and 
published, other software vendors could compete fairly--which, after 
all, is what antitrust laws are supposed to promote. We might then 
be faced with a welcome but long unfamiliar sight: a healthy 
software market, driven, as today's processor market is, by genuine 
competition.
    L TTTTT Peter J. Cacioppi
    L T Sr. Software Developer
    L T LogicTools Inc.
    L T [email protected]
    L www.logic-tools.com
    LLLLLLLL Phone: 541.302.3297
    Fax : 541.302.1422



MTC-00012816

From: Rita Jellison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am an employee at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 
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. Also, the PFJ does not provide an effective 
enforcement mechanism for the weak restrictions it does implement.
    In closing, 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,
    Rita M. Jellison
    Allston, Massachusetts
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012817

From: gene dailey.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom concerned,
    I believe that the proposed Federal Court Settlement regarding 
the alleged Microsoft wrongdoing is fair and proper. I also believe 
that the states choosing to withhold their support are doing so only 
in pursuit of monetary gains not justified by the accusations. It is 
my belief that, at this point in history, our Justice Department has 
far more pressing items to occupy it's time than to interfere in the 
business practices of any of our most valued companies.
    Sincerely,
    Terrell E. Dailey
    5431 Maple St
    Houston TX 77096



MTC-00012818

From: Sean Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time user of personal computer products (dating all 
the way back to the pre-Microsoft era), it seems to me that the 
principle goal in the Microsoft trial should be the re-establishment 
of a competitive market for operating systems and core software (ie, 
Office-like applications, browsers, and email clients). The key to 
this is an open standard to which developers can write, a sort of 
lingua franca for programmers. This standard already exists, in the 
form of the Windows Application Programming Interface (API), but the 
standard is NOT open. The Windows API is defined by Microsoft, and 
though large parts of it are made public (it is, after all, how 
programmers are able to craft products to run on Windows at all), 
other key components are almost certainly kept secret, to be 
exploited by Microsoft's own development teams. Keeping this 
information proprietary provides Microsoft with a non-competitive 
advantage when it comes to writing applications which run on top of 
Windows, and also prevents anyone else from writing an operating 
system which will respond appropriately to API calls made by others' 
applications.
    BUT, if the court were to order (and enforce) the opening of the 
Windows API, Microsoft would find itself playing on the same field 
as other software developers. While they would still enjoy an 
enormous advantage as the original creators of the API, in the long 
run other developers would at least have a chance to fully learn the 
API, contribute to its future expansion, and possibly provide some 
real competition to Microsoft in not only the applications arena, 
but in the operating system market, as well.
    That is the goal, right?
    Thanks for your consideration. I am sure you have heard, and 
will hear, a great number of suggestions which run along similar 
lines to this one, hopefully much more fully fleshed out. I simply 
want to add another vote for real reorganization, as opposed to some 
kind of basically meaningless financial penalty. The future of 
digital technology, which contains so much promise, is in my opinion 
largely contingent upon the recreation of an open, furiously 
innovative, market. A slap on the wrist, even a hard one, will not 
accomplish this. An open API will.
    Cheers,
    Sean Bell
    [email protected]



MTC-00012819

From: DeSpain, David R.
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    First of all, I am writing this as my personal opinion, it does 
not represent the position of the Illinois Department of 
Transportation. Microsoft deserves no sympathy or kindness. Do you 
remember the company that developed a disc compression utility 
called Stacker? Microsoft blatantly copied this, and when Stacker 
won in court, Microsoft bought the company rather than pay a larger 
penalty. This is what they laughingly call ``innovation''. Their 
``freedom to innovate'' is the freedom to steal other's property, 
force makers to buy their OS for every unit or else pay full retail 
price, and use the profits from the OS to force other companies 
(WordPerfect, Stacker, Netscape) out of business.
    What they can't control, they mess in. After their purchase of a 
large interest in Corel, Corel suddenly lost interest in what was 
arguably the best Linux distribution available. Please investigate 
this purchase as it surely is anti-competitive.
    Besides, since when does a convicted criminal get to pick the 
punishment he feels appropriate?
    David R. DeSpain, PE
    Communications Systems Engineer
    Illinois Department of Transportation
    2300 South Dirksen Parkway Room 009
    Springfield, IL 62764 217-782-7234 FAX
    217-782-1927



MTC-00012820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A level playing field must be created for every other software 
and operating system vendor alike.
    Microsoft is guilty. That much is true.
    The only way to completely level the playing field is to open 
up, document and publish Microsoft's APIs and file formats. While I 
don't believe that these should be standardized on (there are much 
better solutions from third party vendors out there) this will give 
those companies ways to work around the tangled mess Microsoft has 
weaved in both their API sets and file formats to: a) prevent the 
competing software of others to work properly with their OS, b) to 
create incentives for upgrade's by not being compatible with eariler 
formats in their own programs and c) to use ``hooks'' in the API's 
available only to them.
    I thank your for your time and consideration.
    Regards,
    John Michael Parkan



MTC-00012821

From: Robert Corkrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:49pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We must move on ,there are probably millions of shareholders 
like me who are tired of our elected officials dragging this on 
anymore!!!!! Who are they listening to?
    Who are they helping?
    Bob Corkrum

[[Page 25659]]



MTC-00012822

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:54pm
Subject: Good or Bad
    Take a look at History. Microsoft played a large part in making 
computing available to almost everyone.
    Give Microsoft a break.
    Bob Martin



MTC-00012823

From: Larry Moe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  3:58pm
Subject: settlement
    Lets get this Microsoft thing over and get back to building up 
our economy. Thank You,
    Larry Moe



MTC-00012824

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:05pm
Subject: Settlement
    I have been in constant review of all judicial proceedings 
regarding the final offer made by Microsoft; it has consumed much 
valuable time and effort on both sides if the issue. Now is the time 
to finally conclude these efforts. The proposal made by Microsoft is 
fair, tough and balanced. The consumer is very much protected. It is 
time. In conclusion, I feel that acceptance of the offer will 
greatly effect and stimulate the U.S economy, and the world's in 
direct proportion as when the litigation caused the markets to 
decline. Microsoft could lift all boats and bring back a strong 
economy. This is the right thing to do.



MTC-00012825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that even what ``Microsoft'' settled for is far beyond 
what the punishment should be. Actually there should be no 
punishment for being an innovative, successful software 
manufacturer. Microsoft is the best because they work harder and 
smarter.
    No consumers were hurt. The cost for ``Windows'' is in line with 
what other software makers charge for their operating systems. If 
there was a better operating system out there it would have become 
the standard no matter what marketing ploys Microsoft used. People 
just want the easiest, best software available.
    If there was a better operating system or even one as good as 
``Windows'' wouldn't you think even one computer manufacturer would 
have included it with their computers?
    As far as bundling is concerned, you don't have to be a computer 
genius to bypass Microsoft's products that are bundled.
    It's clear that this is being pushed by Microsoft's competitors. 
They should spend more time and money innovating rather than trying 
to hurt Microsoft. No harm--no foul--no punishment.
    Gil Rosoff



MTC-00012826

From: Barbara Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have received your e-mail pursuant to our phone conversation 
of yesterday. I am happy to reply to Atty. Gen. Ashcroft on behalf 
of Microsoft because I believe in the company and its management.
    However, what prompted you to contact me in the first place was 
the fact that I had recently attempted to contact Microsoft Outlook 
for help with a technical problem. I find it impossible to obtain a 
direct e-mail address for this help or even a phone number so that I 
may talk with someone about it. It is a simple problem I'm sure; I 
just need to know how to address it. Would you please see that 
someone from Microsoft Outlook contacts me and gives me some 
answers. I would appreciate this help as soon as possible.
    Thank you.
    Barbara Thompson
    P.S. The nature of the problem is as follows: We have two 
addresses served by one account on M.O.: Barbara Thompson--
[email protected] and Bill Thompson--
[email protected].
    A box keeps appearing on my screen showing Internet Server (Bill 
Thompson) or (Willard Thompson) that I either have to ``okay'' or 
``cancel''. It keeps popping up several times in a span of minutes. 
I don't know how to erase it permanently--particularly the ``Willard 
Thompson'' box. The other thing is that on the ``Tools'' menu, there 
is not an option for ``Accounts'' or ``How to Manage Accounts''. Why 
has this disappeared from my tools menu?
    Please see that someone gets this message and that Microsoft is 
kind enough to offer me some help. I will be much more willing to 
respond positively in their behalf. Thank you very much.



MTC-00012827

From: steve cooley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:15pm
Subject: microsoft acquiring SGI 3d patents.
    there are news reports circulating today that Microsoft has 
acquired patents from SGI, Inc., regarding some 3d technologies and 
the OpenGL 3d platform. OpenGL is the only competition Microsoft has 
to it's own Direct3d platform. By acquiring these technologies, it's 
created a monopolistic situation on the continuing developement of 
3d technologies. It's not inconceivable that hardware manufacturers 
would be pressured to stop supporting OpenGL and only support 
Direct3d, which excludes all platforms but Microsoft's.
    I urge you to investigate these matters.
    thank you.
    Steve. . . 



MTC-00012828

From: Barbara Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:14pm
Subject: Recall: Microsoft Settlement
    Barbara Thompson would like to recall the message, ``Microsoft 
Settlement''.



MTC-00012829

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:17pm
Subject: Settle in Favor of the Microsoft Proposal and penalize the 
holdouts
    To whom it may concern:
    To Justice Department Officials, States against Microsoft, and 
their Lawyers: I don't know what is wrong with you legal officials. 
You must settle this case in favor of Microsoft immediately. The 
initial attack on Microsoft by all the states was terrible and 
nearly destroyed the American Economy. Now you have the chance to 
correct your tragic mistake, which harmed thousands of lives and 
thousands of families, and settle this problem once and for all. Who 
knows if the Stock Market and economy will ever recover? Instead, we 
have greedy holdouts and lawyers wanting to get rich still. . .  off 
of Microsoft, and at the expense of the average American citizen.
    Please, accept Microsofts proposal. End this unconstitutional 
attack on the free enterprise system.
    You are so bad, you should be removed from office or position. 
The States which continue to refuse Microsoft's settlement offer 
should be penalized for being UnAmerican, the rest of the States 
should refuse to trade with them, and. . . . ask yourself . . . . 
Why in the world doesn't Mr. Bill Gates take his company to Canada 
or somewhere where ingenuity, hard work, and the free enterprise 
with it's entrepraneural spirit is wanted and honored. Act now, act 
right, Free Microsoft, and do your duty to God and country.
    Richard Radke
    12432 Juanita Dr. NE
    Kirkland, WA 98034
    [email protected]



MTC-00012830

From: Leon O'Dell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsft Case comment
    I think this has gone on long enough. If it hadn't been for 
Microsoft, we wouldn't have personal computers in so many homes. 
Leave them alone, settle this thing once and for all, and let the 
free marketplace decide. The Department of Justice should be seeking 
the truth in more serious matters, such as the Clinton ``last 
minute'' pardons (read: bribes).
    Leon O'Dell
    Youngsville, NC



MTC-00012831

From: Praedor Tempus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen I wish to express my strong opposition to the 
microsoft settlement as agreed to by the Justice Department and 
stand firmly behind the 9 hold-out states seeking to properly 
address microsoft's past and continuing misdeeds and unlawful 
behaviors.
    Microsoft has continued to leverage its operating system 
monopoly to gain ground in other areas since the start of the 
antitrust suit. They are continuing to move to leverage their

[[Page 25660]]

operating system monopoly to grab hold of internet commerce, forcing 
online purchasers to go through microsoft databases on microsoft 
servers with microsoft software. They are seeking to make the 
internet a primarily microsoft-driven domain; the internet cannot be 
allowed to ``belong'' to ANY corporation in any way. It belongs to 
everyone and must continue to be accessable by anyone with any 
operating system.
    Microsoft is buying out patents, so it seems, from the 
faultering SGI. This itself bodes ill for SGI is the source of an 
OPEN graphics format used in industry and entertainment called 
OpenGL (Open Graphics Library). It is not likely, given microsoft's 
past and current behavior, that no harm will come of this. Indeed, 
it is likely that microsoft will seek to impose restrictive 
licensing terms on OpenGL licensees or use their purchases control 
of the library to drive it out of existence in favor of microsoft's 
own, propriatory direct3d graphics library (which ONLY works on 
microsoft operating systems).
    Microsoft simply must have its teeth pulled. It MUST be forced 
to compete ONLY on the merits of software and in no way be allowed 
to ever leverage its current operating system monopoly to drive 
adoption of ANYTHING else they produce.
    I do not know why the DOJ caved in and essentially allowed 
microsoft to write their own punishment, but is stinks to high 
heaven. The 9 holdout states stand in the right, they stand for the 
law, and they stand for fair competition. Their remedy is far and 
away superior to the toothless ``remedy'' accepted by DOJ at the 
behest of microsoft.
    praedor
    Utah



MTC-00012832

From: brownsm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Susan Brown, I am a professional who has been in the 
Information Technology field since the 1970's. As a consumer 
interested in using the best and most reliable products available, 
you must know that I would select Microsoft products any time of the 
day and for the rest of my life!
    Those who are leading the attack against Microsoft must stop 
this crusade against a company that has managed to develop the best 
products possible for appreciative consumers. The fact that other 
envious companies have not been able to produce valuable products 
gives no one the right to attack and to destroy a company who has!
    Leave Microsoft alone and be glad that Bill Gates and his team 
have brought the whole world into the enlightened, productive, and 
efficient time that we, the consumers, enjoy today!
    My name is Susan Brown; I am in support of Microsoft and you can 
contact me directly at (562) 923-7873



MTC-00012833

From: Wesley Salmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It took me two seconds to send this email because Microsoft made 
efficient integrated software. I would appreciate it if yall would 
stop shaking them down. How much tax revenue has Microsoft 
generated? You should be thanking them for paying your paycheck.
    Wesley Salmon



MTC-00012834

From: Jeff Ferland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:23pm
Subject: Public comment on case
    I find there to be two reasonable courses of action to take on 
this issue, the first being less severe, more fair, and more 
generic; while the second is almost extreme.
    My first reaction is to ban any agreement that forces you to buy 
an operating system with a computer, and if you opt to not take the 
offer then the cost of the operating system should not be charged to 
you. The same ought to apply for bundled software. It is certainly 
unfair to me to when I go to buy a laptop to know that I must pay 
what many Unix computer professionals have come to refer to as a 
``Microsoft Tax.'' Linux seems much more suited to me and having to 
pay for another operating system of which I have no intent of using 
is incredible (this also applies for those of us who already own a 
license for Windows that is not being used and would prefer to spare 
themselves the expense of paying for something twice). I can't see 
this as being anything but fair and competitive as there is no 
single common computer architecture for which only one operating 
system is capable of running on.
    In addition to the above, I would also find it beneficial should 
Microsoft (specifically this time) be prohibited from bundling any 
of their products together at reduced cost. The cost of a complete 
office suite should be the same as the individual ones, and the same 
goes for their browser which should not be integral to the operating 
system. Windows ought to be available without Internet Explorer, and 
should also cost less without it (though I don't see any argument to 
it being downloadable for free). My second and much more drastic 
suggestion is the corporate death penalty. Basically the revocation 
of Microsoft's corporate charter. All their code would be forced 
open and placed on publicly accessible servers that will be 
maintained from some of Microsoft's resources. Their physical parts 
(computers and such) would be sold at a public online auction. In 
any case, my belief is that the suggestions I have presented first 
should be instated. My second suggestions should be weighed 
carefully and I make no movement to support them--they are merely 
presented as a possible solution as it is not my right to make such 
a decision.
    -Jeff
    SIG: HUP
    PS--Just another computer user that doesn't think corporations 
should be allowed to tax you for what they don't own.



MTC-00012835

From: Bryan William Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft and their supporters maintain that the company must be 
allowed to continue to innovate in the computer market without 
restraint on the part of the government. The reality is that 
Microsoft actually does very little innovation other than purchasing 
products and companies and either integrating them into their 
Windows product or if not feasible from a business sense they kill 
products that would otherwise compete with the Windows monopoly. 
Microsoft is not so much about innovation as they are about 
marketing and their corporate behavior has always been one of 
repression of small (and large) technology businesses, and as such 
innovation in the computer industry has been held back and in some 
cases driven back.
    To appreciate how absurd these claims of innovation are we only 
have to look at the origins of Microsoft that go back to a purchase 
from Tim Patterson of a product called X86-DOS. X86-DOS was then 
rebranded as MS-DOS and licensed to IBM for use in their computers. 
No innovation here. Windows was copied (rather badly in earlier 
forms) from Apples Lisa and Macintosh lines and was not actually an 
operating system per se as much as it was an application that ran on 
top of the real operating system that was still DOS. By the way 
Novell also had a DOS, which Microsoft crippled by making their 
Windows application incompatible with thus driving that product out 
of the market and causing harm to Utah residents and consumers as 
well as possibly the software industry as a whole.
    Contrary to popular belief, the web browser was not invented by 
Microsoft either. Microsoft was late to that game. The web browser 
was actually invented on the NeXT platform and Microsofts claim 
comes by way of licensing of code from a company called Spyglass in 
1995. They then called the product MS Internet Explorer. Where 
Spyglass was harmed was in the licensing agreement. Microsoft agreed 
to give Spyglass any royalties from the sale of Internet Explorer. 
When Microsoft started giving away Internet explorer to drive 
Netscape out of business, there were no royalties available to 
distribute to Spyglass.
    As for Microsofts other products, one would be hard pressed to 
find one that was not purchased, licensed or conceptually stolen 
from another company. To illustrate: Microsoft did not invent the 
word processor as there were many examples of the concept before 
Word on such platforms as the Apple II, the Osborne, Commodore, 
Atari, and the TRS-80. Excel was not the original spreadsheet 
program as that honor goes to Visicalc which originally was created 
on the Apple II computer. The product we know as Excel was 
contracted for Apples Macintosh computer in 1984 and was called 
xcel/Multiplan. Microsoft then created their own ``Excel'' for 
Windows. The Microsoft Foxpro database was the result of a purchase 
of Fox software in 1986, MS-OLE came from Wang labs, Powerpoint came 
from the purchase of Forethought Inc. in 1987, SQL server was 
purchased from Sybase in 1988, Visual Basic was purchased from 
Cooper software in 1991,

[[Page 25661]]

and Windows NT which begat Windows 2000 and Windows XP was 
originally XENIX and was written under contract by Santa Cruz 
Operation. Even Microsofts games are not home grown efforts. Flight 
Simulator was purchased from the Bruce Artwick Organization, and 
their central software product for their forthcoming X-Box game 
console is the result of a purchase of a company called Bungie which 
got its start developing for again, the Macintosh.
    One could argue that even with Microsofts anti-competitive 
behavior, they are bringing products to market and making them 
available to the consumer. But in bringing many of these products to 
market, Microsoft has used their monopoly status to get away with 
quality control issues that companies in any other industry would be 
run out of business for. Microsofts product strategy is not to 
deliver well designed products based on good engineering, rather 
their goal is getting products out the door regardless of their 
level of completeness or the level of quality of the product. They 
are in reality a timeline driven company rather than a product 
driven company that even with the benefit of copying others work, 
they copy and implement that work badly.
    The result of this can be seen in numerous bugs that crop up 
when we are using our computers which for most of us are minor to 
relatively serious inconveniences, but for organizations like the 
Navy, they can be deadly as exemplified when Windows NT crashed the 
computer systems of the USS Yorktown leaving it dead in the water 
off the coast of Virginia. We can all imagine what would have 
happened had this crash occurred in combat.
    Continuing Microsofts recidivist behavior, the company in 
releasing XP is tying more and more products into the Windows 
monopoly and as such they are eliminating consumer choice and 
continuing to leverage Windows to gain access to other markets and 
eliminate competition in those markets as well. Does this tying of 
products into the Windows monopoly constitute innovation? Perhaps 
loosely but the real question is: How does this affect the consumer? 
Companies like Spyglass certainly have been taken advantage of as 
well as the other companies affected by Microsofts behavior 
throughout the companies history leaving us to ask ourselves, where 
would we be today if companies small and large were not afraid or 
unable to compete with Microsoft?
    Additionally, it has come to my attention that Microsoft has 
also recently purchased the patents for 3D technology from SGI. This 
will possibly allow Microsoft significant leverage over the 
independent 3D hardware manufacturers who are currently supporting 
the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, OpenGL. This 
places development of 3D technology in jeopardy as Microsoft will 
most likely take what tools they can from OpenGL, integrate them 
into the Windows paradigm and then eliminate all further development 
of the OpenGL standard causing significant harm to the consumer and 
industry.
    Best Regards,
    Bryan William Jones
    [email protected]
    University of Utah School of Medicine
    Moran Eye Center Rm 3407
    75 N. Medical Dr.
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84132
    http://insight.med.utah.edu/marc/index.html



MTC-00012836

From: Lawrence C Hale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust settlement
    The settlement is more than just by Microsoft.



MTC-00012837

From: Bob and Tiny Skagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:01am
Subject: settlement
    I don't know why the goverment is so biased against Microsoft. 
That company has done so much for our country , I think the 
government wants too much control of everything. Is the government 
jealous, that's my question.
    Sincerely,
    Ruthella Skagen--a 72 year old taxpayer



MTC-00012839

From: Sharrie Dyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please get off Microsoft's back. I am a senior citizen who 
relies on Microsoft products because they're the easiest to learn 
and use. I don't understand why you're trying to punish them for 
being innovative and meeting public needs.



MTC-00012840

From: Johnny Appleseed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a libertarian Republican.
    Having considered the evidence, it is clear that Microsoft is 
true monopoly, and it has abused its monopoly powers in an 
anticompetitive manner. Accordingly, its monopoly must be broken. 
This is the single most important element. It bears commenting that 
other businesses may be bahaving in an anticompetitive manner in 
other fields (beyond Operating Systems), and those should be pursued 
as well.
    Finally, the ``tolerance'' of anticompetitive practices by 
Microsoft may lead other businesses to behave anticompetitively as 
well, as this might be seen as necessary for survival.
    Michael Conard



MTC-00012841

From: Jeff Wimble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:30pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Microsoft should have never been attcked as they were in the 
first place. It was a silly, pointless investigation from start to 
finish, especially the last six or eight years of it.
    I hope the investigation proved to COngree and the American 
people just how silly, petty, and useless the anti-trust divison is. 
I hope congress drastically cuts their funding in future years.



MTC-00012842

From: Sean Flanegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge. . . 
    I would like to state that I disagree with the Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that it is unfair.
    Thank you
    sf



MTC-00012843

From: John Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    Antitrust law is illogical, ex post facto, unenforceable. If a 
business sets a price above the prices of its rivals, it can be 
charged with ?intent to monopolize.? If it sets a price below those 
of rivals, it can be charged with ?predatory pricing? or ?unfair 
competition? or ?restraint of trade.? If it charges a price similar 
to those of rivals, it can be charged with ?collusion? and joining a 
?conspiracy to fix prices.? Antitrust law substitutes the free 
choices of the free market for the coersive judgment of one judge. 
The alleged benefits to the consumer are a myth; the court takes 
money away from the people whom the consumers rewarded with thier 
patronage, and gives it by force to those the consumers did not want 
to pay.
    In every case, prices to consumers go up after the courts make 
an antitrust ruling. The business losses to the United States 
economy run to the billions of dollars.
    In this case, Microsoft is under attack by an envious rival. The 
several states should be forbidden from pursuing this case.
    Yours, John C. Wright
    Centreville, VA



MTC-00012844

From: Sean Flanegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor. . .
    This is a note stating that I don't not agree with the 
settlement regarding Microsoft. I believe it is unfair.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sean Flanegan



MTC-00012845

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:35pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    If the government is interested in breaking up a monopoly, they 
should start with the Department of Education.



MTC-00012846

From: Matthew Drabik
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Issue an apology to Microsoft and America and be done with it. 
The DOJ made a mistake

[[Page 25662]]

even starting this and should admit it publicly.
    Matthew Drabik
    4571 Southland Avenue
    Alexandria, VA 20170
    (703) 354-91378



MTC-00012847

From: Anuj Goyal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft buys (some) SGI patents: http://slashdot.org/articles/
02/01/16/1824256.shtml I understand that Govt. lawyers are having a 
difficult time reaching a settlement with Microsoft, but do not 
allow them keep buying intellectual properly which will let MS 
create a monopoly in graphical software or graphical APIs as well. 
During this time of uncertainty, the US Govt. should be scrutunizing 
everything that Microsoft does in relation to their bottom line. 
Competing standards have always brought about inefficiency and by 
having one major company controlling the graphical standards that 
the rest of the world uses, it do a great injustice to free markets 
and an efficient economy.
    Sincerely,
    ANUJ GOYAL
    6401 SHELLMOUND ST APT 7204
    EMERYVILLE CA 94608-1072
    Home: 510.597.0348 (pls call b/w 5pm-8pm PST)



MTC-00012848

From: Choate, B Paul Mr EACH
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle. Get off their case. Let economic forces determine their 
fate. By the way, Microsoft is less of a ``monopoly'' now than Apple 
was in it's heyday (early 80's). The technology industry is way to 
volitile for anyone to rule forever.
    B. Paul Choate, M.D.
    Colorado Springs



MTC-00012849

From: donnie walt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:41pm
Subject: Government has a bad enough reputation!
    Leave Bill alone if you don't like windows use a Mac.
    Government has a bad enough reputation! Leave Bill alone if you 
don't like windows use a Mac.



MTC-00012850

From: austin and dana troy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:42pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Whle I think Bill Gates is too arrogant by far,the country does 
itself a disservice by continuig this qJihad against MSFT.If it 
wern`t for Windows the PC industry would never have had its 
explosive growth. To me it seems impossible to have predatory,anti-
competitive pricing on an operating system on one hand and gouging 
of the consumer on the other.
    By the way I own no shares in MSFT,and haven`t for several 
years.
    Austin Troy



MTC-00012851

From: Ed Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the government ought to sock them the maximum amount 
allowable. They have gotten away with computer equivalent of murder 
and ought to have to pay the piper. How about every user (of MS 
record) in the world getting a check for $20 as a one time 
settlement for the company's monopolistic actions for at least the 
last five years? They certainly shouldn't be allowed to put a bunch 
of dirt cheap computers loaded with MS programs into schoolrooms.
    Sincerely,
    Edward G. Robinson
    2406 Oakwood Way
    Smyrna, GA 30080-3881



MTC-00012852

From: Richard Sheppard
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a trial lawyer scheme for heaven's sake. Shut it down 
forthwith!
    Regards,
    Dick Sheppard
    Jersey City, NJ



MTC-00012853

From: Steve Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the settlement on the table involving 
Microsoft. I wonder what the nine states attempting to get further 
concessions from the settlement are reaching for? As for Utah, I 
believe there is a software company (Novell) that competes with 
Microsoft in some areas, and we have some conflicts regarding an 
impartial decision.



MTC-00012854

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 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 emphatic opinion that it is time to 
settle the
    Microsoft antitrust case. The case has gone on for far too long. 
I believe Microsoft was pretty aggressive in their marketing. 
However, this was an entirely new area of business with no real way 
of knowing from past experience what would be considered an anti-
trust infringement and what would not. Microsoft's hands have been 
slapped. In fact, as I understand them, the terms of the settlement 
not only slap Microsoft's hands, but also ties them in the future. 
Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate against software or hardware 
developers who develop or promote software that competes with 
Windows. They have agreed to grant computer makers broad new rights 
to configure Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software 
programs. And they have agreed to design future versions of Windows 
so that competitors can more easily promote their own products 
within Windows. This seems almost the opposite of free-market 
enterprise and certainly mandates co-operation with their 
competitors.
    As an Iowan, I disagree with the stand Attorney General Tom 
Miller has taken. I tried to send him an e-mail (lacking his e-mail 
address, I ended up sending care of the Governor) telling him this. 
I have had no reply. I think he is wrong and is letting political 
interests guide him instead of looking out for what is best for the 
State of Iowa as well as the nation. Any error Microsoft made in too 
enthusiastically promoting their growth has been mitigated, in my 
mind, by the huge advances their innovations have caused in all 
areas our society and the economy and IT sector. We need more 
entrepreneurial endeavors in this country. Especially since 9/11, we 
don't need to spend time and efforts on things like this. That is 
why it is your job to take a stance and finalize the settlement. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Pineo
    1568 Rio Valley Dr.
    Des Moines, IA 50325



MTC-00012855

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 16, 2002
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I have been practicing law for 20 years and am writing to 
express my support for the DOJ settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation. I do not represent any party to this matter.
    As I read the Court of Appeals decision, the tying case has 
effectively been thrown out. As a consequence, the DOJ deserves in 
my view plaudits for obtaining better terms than it could possibly 
have obtained upon retrial. The State Attorney Generals who have 
opposed this settlement are purely political opportunists with no 
knowledge of the law, and the competitors of Microsoft are ignoring 
the fact that their tying case is gone.
    Sincerely yours,
    Douglas B. Levene
    45 Ryders Lane
    Wilton, Conn. 06897
    [email protected]
    Admitted in New York and Illinois.



MTC-00012856

From: David Rasmussen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:47pm
Subject: Renata Hess, Microsoft settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    This email is being written in support of the Microsoft 
settlement. I believe the

[[Page 25663]]

settlement provides Microsoft with the guidelines it needs to market 
their product legally.
    Sincerely,
    DeMar ``Bud'' Bowman, Representative Utah House of 
Representatives District #72



MTC-00012857

From: John Borchers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear sirs,
    Just leave Microsoft alone. Their competitors are using you to 
harm Microsoft unfairly, and no consumers were damaged in any way. 
Thanks.
    John Borchers
    Camp Verde, AZ



MTC-00012858

From: Allen Covert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Let it go. Sign the settlement and let the biggest economic 
engine in the world rev up again.



MTC-00012859

From: Jeff Quiggle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement agreement Microsoft and U.S. Government is a 
positive step and should be allowed to stand.
    Jeffery J. Quiggle



MTC-00012860

From: Anderson, Kyle
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Kudos on your decision to settle with Microsoft and promote a 
stronger, healthier business for a company that has done so much for 
bringing technology to us. I support your decision to encourage best 
business practices without letting illogical bias get in the way. 
Thanks!
    Kyle Anderson



MTC-00012861

From: Becky Spoon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I think the settlement is one of the best things that ever 
happened to Microsoft and one of the worst for the welfare of the 
public. I've been telling people for years that if Microsoft were 
smart, they'd be giving old computers to the schools so they could 
undercut Apple's position in the marketplace. They call this 
PUNISHMENT? Give us a break. How stupid do ``they'' think the 
American public is?
    (Apparently VERY stupid. . . )



MTC-00012862

From: Jim Lang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:01pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    To whom it may concern,
    For the last 8 years, Microsoft has been the subject of 
continual harassment by our Federal Government. This was started one 
year after Clinton was elected into office as POUS. The reason for 
this harassment was and is pure politics. During his campaign for 
President, Clinton was supported in this effort by Larry Ellison, 
Pres of Oracle. Oracle competes with Microsoft. Oracle was loosing 
market share to Microsoft at that time (and they still are . . .). 
Ellison convinced Clinton to wage war with Microsoft in hopes that 
Oracle would gain a better position in their market. Microsoft 
successfully defended itself against this attack. A settlement was 
finalizes that all parties agreed to abide with.
    The USDOJ should also honor this settlement. To continue to 
attempt to destroy an American company the way you have, is contrary 
to all the beliefs of our free society.
    Regards,
    Jim Lang



MTC-00012863

From: LEONARD ABRAHAM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:03pm
Subject: antitrust suit
    as a microsoft shareholder i think the government shoud close 
the case. time and money have been spent and i believe the company 
has performed in a just manner. many of their competitors would like 
to carry this on i think because they are unable to come up with 
solutions for their own companies.



MTC-00012864

From: RADUIP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the best punishment for Microsoft would be: ``NO 
GOVERNMENT INVOLVE IN THE SUIT OR THEIR AGENTS SHALL USE ANY 
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS FOR 5 YEARS'' This would leave the consumers 
alone to make their own choices. Microsoft competitors have 
instigated this suit.
    CNN only advertises AOL on their channels. No 
MSN,Earthlink,Mac.com,etc
    Sincerely
    Radu Pacurariu, MD
    920 Wyoming Ave.
    Forty Fort, PA 18704



MTC-00012865

From: Darin Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If this case cannot be abandoned outright, it should be settled 
as quickly and painlessly as possible. It is an embarrassment that 
the Justice Department ever sought to punish one of America's most 
productive and important companies. The decision to do so seems to 
have been based on politics instead of reason.
    Darin Johnson
    Seattle, WA



MTC-00012866

From: Tom Kaitchuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:05pm
Subject: MS Buys (Some) SGI Patents
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft isn't in the PC hardware business, and it's unlikely 
that the patents will change its technical strategy. But they do add 
significantly to its bargaining position with hardware vendors, 
giving Redmond important new leverage. Rival APIs, principally 
OpenGL, are kept alive through the support of graphics hardware 
vendors. And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining 
a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the 
advantages from continuing to support OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Tom Kaitchuck



MTC-00012867

From: Katy Bagierek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    My opinion: Bill Gates and Microsoft have created thousands of 
jobs, hundreds of millionaires and have improved US industry and 
government. There is a lot of competition out there and anyone could 
surge ahead. There's an old saying that if a person could build a 
better mousetrap the world would beat a way to his doorstep. That's 
what Bill Gates has done, and now they're trying to hang him for 
producing that better mousetrap. Antitrust laws should be abolished. 
They don't protect the consumer who can always go elsewhere, they 
just destroy all those good mousetraps.
    Katy Bagierek
    Dillingham, AK



MTC-00012868

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

[[Page 25664]]

Date: 1/16/02  5:12pm
Subject: DOJ Actions against Microsoft
    ``Justice'' Department actions to bring down Microsoft seem 
anything but just to me. Microsoft has built just about the best 
mousetrap that has ever come on the scene in a country once noted 
for recognizing and rewarding business endeavors that benefit the 
entire country. And Microsoft has made a tremendous contribution to 
the development of information technology that is beneficial to our 
entire economy and America's continuing leadership in the business 
world. They have done this in a fair fight in a highly competitive 
game and, because some of their less successful competitors have 
whined, DOJ has decided to punish Microsoft's success. Where is 
fairness; where is justice; where are integrity and honesty? Let's 
get on with rewarding success rather than punishing it. And at the 
same time, let's stop punishing those, including self, I proudly 
note, who have recognized Microsoft's contributions by investing in 
Microsoft stock and find themselves also financially abused by 
inappropriate government intervention in a highly successful 
business enterprise that has vastly benefitted the entire country 
including those who would tear it down. Please let us persue both 
justice and sanity, allowing business acumen, common sense and 
market forces free rein.
    Respectfully,
    Jack S. Kenyon



MTC-00012869

From: Patrick O'Brien
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  5:19pm
Subject: Leave Microsoft Alone!
    I am one of many information technology professionals whose 
income depends, in large part, upon Microsoft. Please stop the 
attacks against this company!
    Patrick O'Brien
    3130 Lafayette Ave.
    Saint Louis, MO 63104



MTC-00012870

From: Dick Norman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    As a successful computer consultant for the past twenty years to 
numerous major corporations including IBM, Michelin, Arco, Deutsche 
Bank, and Fortune, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft's success has been largely due to their ability to 
develop ``best of breed'' applications and to distribute and market 
those worldwide. Their success is also due to the strategic blunders 
of their competitors. From Novell to WordPerfect to Oracle to 
Netscape, each of these competitors (and many more) has failed 
miserably in critical areas of product design, marketing, or 
support. We have been led to believe that the government should 
protect these software vendors from their own incompetence. Here are 
just a few examples of what is a very long list.
    WordPerfect failed to grasp the significance of the graphical 
user interfaces (GUI) used by the Macintosh and Windows. As a 
consequence, they were several years late to market with a Windows 
based product--a very costly blunder. Their market share fell from 
over 80 percent to well under 10 percent in the very important word 
processing/suite segment.
    Novell once ``owned'' the file server market. They, like 
WordPerfect, hung on to their character based user interface. 
Recognizing this weakness Microsoft developed a competitive product 
which was so intuitive that server administrators rarely had to 
attend classes or refer to manuals. Novell still has a few ``best of 
breed'' features which are totally obscured by Microsoft's ease of 
use.
    Oracle developed a very good database product. But their real 
strength was there marketing organization which recognized that 
Oracle needed to run on virtually every platform. Oracle has been 
very successful, but has started to lose large numbers of sales to 
Microsoft's SQL Server, which is considerably easier to install, 
configure, and use.
    Netscape was initially one of the brightest stars in the 
Internet universe. Netscape virtually owned the Internet browser and 
server markets. Their browser and their web server were simply the 
best. But following their IPO, they had lots of money, which allowed 
them to go off in 20 different directions rather than focusing on 
their core business. As a Netscape business partner, I received a 
blizzard of mis-directions on where they were headed.
    Microsoft's competitors would like the public to believe that it 
isn't possible to be successful in the software industry today. But 
success stories abound, both with large and small software 
companies. Visioneer's PaperPort, IBM's VisualAge for Java, IBM's-
ViaVoice gold, NetObjects Fusion are just a few examples of ``best 
of breed'' software where Microsoft doesn't dominate.
    It is instructional to visit the software department of 
virtually any computer store in the world where Microsoft enjoys 
less than ten percent of the all important shelf-space--a key 
indicator in retailing.
    Rather than being a predator, Microsoft has repeatedly 
capitalized on the strategic blunders of other software companies. 
The software business, with its very short product life cycles, is 
much like the stock market or the crap table. You invest your money 
and take your best shot. If you lose, you have no one to blame but 
yourself. I know. I have competed unsuccessfully with Microsoft in 
several spaces.
    Because I believe the lawsuit against Microsoft was nonsensical 
from the beginning, I would like to have the Microsoft case 
settled--once and for all.
    Dick Norman
    President/CEO
    Strategic Workflow Technologies, Inc.
    Dallas, TX
    E-Mail: [email protected] Phone: 972-393-7369 Fax: 972-304-
8759



MTC-00012871

From: Donald Strand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The computer industry could create much better products for 
everyday users if Microsoft didn't have a stranglehold on the 
software business. I urge the DOJ to consider making Microsoft 
release all of its code so that competing companies could develop 
software and competition would be restored to the software industry. 
What a great benefit this would be to the consumer.
    Donald Strand



MTC-00012872

From: ECU00000
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Drop the suit entirely!
    John C. Beyer, MD



MTC-00012873

From: Stewart Adcock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Sir,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
several fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and 
techniques from SGI, Inc. This is a dangerous situation; it grants 
Microsoft significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware 
manufacturers who are currently supporting the only rival to 
Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, OpenGL. I believe this is further 
indication that Microsoft intends to extend its monopoly by 
squeezing out competing standards and technology.
    This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D technology 
patents provides Microsoft with the power to force third party 3D 
hardware manufacturers to drop support for OpenGL, and ultimately 
stifle innovation and competition in the marketplace. Discountinued 
support for OpenGL by third parties will seriously inhibit the 
ability of other operating systems to offer a feasible alternative 
to Microsoft's offerings for graphic intensive applications. 
Computer game developers will have no option but target Microsoft's 
gaming platforms. Scientists and engineers will be forced to use 
Microsoft's visualisation platforms.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Stewart Adcock.
    Stewart Adcock [email protected] www.stewart-adcock.co.uk
    Dept. Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of California, San 
Diego 4234
    Urey Hall, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0365 USA
    lab: +1 858 534 0956 home: +1 858 453 2577
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012874

From: Richard Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ask RealNetworks Inc. if streaming audio and video should be 
part and parcel of an operating system.
    RealNetworks is a *classic* example of Microsoft's predatory 
practices. If you can

[[Page 25665]]

live with this, you need look into no other examples.
    As a citizen, I don't want anti-competitive policies to cause 
Microsoft to be non-profitable, I want these policies to have the 
constructive effect of causing Microsoft to focus on the quality of 
its existing products, the reliability of which is becoming more 
critical to this nation every minute.
    Rich Bryant
    7903 Sugarcane, Ct.
    Tampa, FL 813-980-6163
    Rich Bryant, CEO, Business Technologies
    [email protected]
    http://www.biztekinc.net/
    Specializing in the development of Electronic Commerce, Online 
Communities and Web-enabled databases.



MTC-00012875

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jeez--this clearly political case was a loser from the start. In 
the end, Microsoft just has a more popular product. Tough cookies, 
Netscape. No settlement is acceptable, because the suit should have 
never been brought.



MTC-00012876

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear DOJ:
    Re: your solicitation of consumer opinion concerning the 
Microsoft settlement
    I thought the entire case against Microsoft was weak, its very 
existence an affront to honest free-market businesspeople.
    Note: I use a Power Macintosh, and have always been an Apple 
user. I am hardly affected by Microsoft. But its business practices 
have always appeared to me to be earnest, and to think the 
government would be punitive toward a successful venture is 
sickening. Microsoft 1.) pays its taxes, 2.) has rewarded a lot of 
working people with well-to-do incomes and equity, 3.) has a solvent 
401-k, and 4.) hasn't cooked its books while finagling its financial 
situation, as some people in Houston seem to have done lately.
    So why on earth did my government ever try to dismantle this 
company, which exemplifies all that is good about capitalism and the 
American work ethic? Because of the complaints of its competitors, 
who apparently weren't as creative or far-seeing or successful as 
Mr. Gates and his legions?
    I have never held, and do not hold, any financial interest in 
Microsoft, and have never been employed by the company. My 
perspective is that of an informed citizen who has followed 
government intervention in the private sector since the mid-1970s-- 
with knowledge of American economic and political history since well 
before Theodore Roosevelt's first interventions. At least TR had a 
point, and some righteousness. The Clinton justice department did 
not.
    Tim Hays
    Chairman
    Greenburgh Republican Town Committee
    Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
    NY-20 CD
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,twhazlett@ yahoo.com@inet. . .



MTC-00012877

From: Sfikas, Ted
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good day,
    When I look at this case in an unbiased manner ( which is 
difficult for me as I am in the IT industry ), I see that this issue 
has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the 
basic building blocks of our capitalistic society. Although I must 
admit that I am a Java-proponent, I am a capitalist first and 
foremost. The idea of forcing MicroSoft to NOT innovate and NOT 
expand its business in areas that make sense for itself and for the 
consumer is offending to the very nature of capitalism, but as we 
have all learned in Economics 101, one of the serious flaws of 
capitalism is the issue of monopolies and to a lesser extent, 
collaborating oligopolies.
    Neither phenomena should be allowed to exist in the Information 
Technology sector as this industry has become the lifeblood of the 
US economy. It needs to be protected in such a way that healthy 
competition will encourage dozens of corporations to continue their 
marvellous innovations. At our current point in time, the IT 
industry is sick and weak from both recession and redundancies 
within the labor market and corporate inventories. It will become 
more and more difficult to build a healthy capitalistic environment 
as the next few crucial years go by and the country starts taking 
their applications to the next levels of international computing.
    It's time to put a stop to this now, before irrevocable damage 
is done. Although MicroSoft should not be asked to surrender their 
intellectual property, they MUST decouple their middleware services 
from their operating system.
    Can you imagine what the world would be like if at the beginning 
of the Transportation revolution( ie. way back when the car was 
invented on top of the engine ), there was only a single Big 
Corporation that could make the highways and roads that vehicles 
could drive on? And then that Big Corporation acquired the few 
companies in the world that made automobile tires? What if a better 
vehicle with better tires wanted to drive on the same road? Can you 
imagine the Big Corporation spending its time, effort, and money 
inventing ways in which to make the better vehicle's tires 
deteriorate faster than its own while travelling on its roads? It's 
a perfect analogy and everyone knows it--the point of it is to 
illustrate that MicroSoft itself will be better off if it is forced 
to decouple because it could concentrate on doing what it supposedly 
does best.
    Thank you,
    Ted Sfikas
    Software Architect
    206.215.7452
    [email protected]
    Nordstrom.com



MTC-00012878

From: Ray at MBS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer,a Microsoft customer and a Microsoft 
investor. I am pretty certain that Bill Gates wakes up every morning 
wondering what he can put in his products that will cause me to 
upgrade to a new version. He also hopes that I will develop software 
and sell some that needs his new operating system and office 
products. A few years ago we had a product that sold lots of NT and 
Office. Someone from Microsoft called to thank us. But if Microsoft 
comes up with nothing over a long enough period of time the sales 
will drop to selling software to only new computers that are not 
replacements for old computers. That would hurt the bottom line. His 
competitors would like to fix it so only they can come up with new 
features that they can sell me. That does nothing for me. All I need 
is 5 different standards to support.
    Microsoft reminds me of Ford and the auto industry in 1915. Ford 
at that time had 90 percent of the auto market. Ford had to compete 
with GM who put out a car that was just like the Model T only 
better. By 1928 Ford had less than 50 percent of the market. 
Microsoft competitors insist on building an operating system and 
applications that Microsoft users can't run. If GM had built a car 
that Ford owners could not drive, they would never have sold 
Chevies. GM was smart enough to build cars that any Ford driver 
could operate with out lessons. Microsoft should not be held 
accountable for his would be competitors stupidity. It costs a 100 
bucks to buy windows. But it costs 500 to a 1,000 bucks to train 
someoone to run free Linux. There is a clue there if you can see it. 
When someone is bright enough to do that . . . to make a system just 
like windows only cheaper or better, Microsoft will no longer have 
90 percent of the Intel market. Microsoft is fully aware of the 
danger that poses. Microsoft just filed a suit trying to stop little 
Lindows from using that name. This tiny start up is planning to make 
a system that is just like windows only it is supposed to cost less 
an be a tiny bit better.
    Microsoft did not sue to stop Netscape, Sun or Linux. They are 
suing to stop Lindows. There is a second clue there. If you want to 
take Microsoft down a notch or to make them get off Lindows back. I 
own Microsoft stock and still have a loss on it, but I would also 
like to develop for Microsoft competitors. The Suns, Netscapes, 
UNIX, and LINUX people don't compete with Windows. To put it in 
transportation terms they want to stop Ford from selling improved 
cars. They hope that will help their train, plane, truck, bus and 
taxi businesses. None of them has a product that competes with 
Windows.
    When no one has a competitive product, it is not surprising that 
the only product on the market has a monopoly.
    Microsoft keeps redesigning its Model T. It now is a 55 ford 
Fairlane with a heater. air conditioning, and cruse control. What 
needs to happen is for some one to build a 55 Chevie that sells for 
less than a 55 Ford.
    For Microsoft the big problem is not this settlement. The 
problem is they have run out

[[Page 25666]]

of new ideas to put in the operating system to get clients to 
upgrade.That is why XP now comes in a beautiful shade of blue. There 
chief designers solution is to try to just lease you an operating 
system and office software instead of selling it to you. That is 
right up there with Fords ``You can have any color you want as long 
as it is black.''
    Microsoft has done nothing that Ford did not do. And Microsoft 
is no more secure in its dominance than Ford was. All government can 
accomplish is to turn the software industry in to the aircraft 
industry where all consumers can afford is a ticket to ride. We can 
transform the software industry from being a parallel of the auto 
industry to being a parallel of the aircraft industry. Is that what 
government wants? Perhaps you would prefer a United Airlines type 
software industry. But it would never create the jobs Ford and GM 
have created.
    I do not know if the Lindows people are a GM or not, but I am 
certain there is a GM out there if only you will let them have at 
Microsoft. The problem is any restrictions you put on Microsoft will 
also apply to his potential competitors.
    The problem is the people who think they are Microsofts 
competitors are not. They are not in the same game . . . That is why 
they can't defeat Microsoft. When some one does systems that any 
windows user can run with out training, they will have Gates in 
their cross hairs. As long as so called competitors fail to do that 
you will not stop Microsoft's dominance no matter what the penalty. 
In fact if you broke Microsoft up one branch would dominate Pc's 
again, and the others would destroy Oracle and Sun,and Netscape.
    The problem is not with Microsoft. Microsoft is just blessed 
with stupid would be challengers and cursed with government lawyers 
that think business principles have changed because this time they 
are dealing with bytes rather than iron and rubber.
    Sincerely
    Ray Malone
    MbsSoftware
    251 East 4th ST
    Chillicothe Oh, 45601
    [email protected]
    740 772 6705



MTC-00012879

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Get the settlement done and let them get on with business. It's 
the stupid lawsuit that led to some of the stock market problems 
we've had, particularly the NADAQ.
    David Fletcher
    Denver, NC



MTC-00012880

From: Larry Riedel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software professional and someone who tries to not use 
Microsoft products, my preferred solution to the problem of 
Microsoft's monopoly would be to require them to provide equal 
access for everyone to all the file and message formats for all of 
its software, including Office files multimedia files, client and 
server network messages, and any other format used for data which is 
stored by any Microsoft software, or sent or received by any 
Microsoft software, now and in the future.
    Furthermore, they would need to be required to provide that 
information at least a couple of months--before--they release the 
software which uses the formats; otherwise they will continue to do 
what they have done in the past, which is keep changing the formats 
as often as possible and then releasing an ``updated'' version of 
their software which knows the new format before the previous format 
had been reverse engineered by the people trying to write compatible 
software.
    This solution allows people to write software which 
interoperates with Microsoft software, but offers a better value 
than Microsoft software. Microsoft has prevented this from happening 
in the past: not allowing people to interoperate with their 
software, thus retaining their monopoly and precluding competition.
    Larry



MTC-00012881

From: meyermail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Meyer
1716 Euclid Ave.
Bellingham, WA 98226
January 16, 2002
Department of Justice
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    Please let us get by this Microsoft litigation. It has been 
going on for years with the only result being that it helps to 
depress the economies in Washington state and elsewhere in the 
country and gives a lot of lawyers something to do. The nine holdout 
states may get some small individualized reward by further 
punishment of Microsoft to the detriment of the rest of the country 
and themselves. It is my belief, that the states of California and 
Massachusetts do not want to share the wealth of technology with the 
rest of the country. They want to put themselves in first place by 
punishing Microsoft rather than competing with them.
    Microsoft's proposed settlement would have been good for the 
country in general. Please stop this needless litigation and endless 
argument and get back to moving our economy forward. Microsoft came 
up with a reasonable settlement that would have been of benefit to 
all. There is no sense in destroying Microsoft to please and benefit 
a few. The Department of Justice has the power to stop the nonsense 
now. Please do it.
    I look forward to a quick and reasonable settlement based on the 
above thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Meyer



MTC-00012882

From: Zimran Ahmed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Microsoft's current corporate licensing practices continue to 
display the predatory maintenance of monopoly the DoJ trial was 
supposed to suspend.
    In their new license 6.0, http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/ 
Microsoft offers deep discounts to customers who agree to never use 
or consider a competitors profits. This offer is against the 
backdrop of a 25%-100%+ increase in software licensing prices.
    This abuse of monopoly power to extend monopoly by keeping out 
competitors is *exactly* what is hampering innovation in the 
technology industry and what anti-trust law is supposed to address. 
Competitors should be allowed to create the best products they can 
and customers should be able to select whichever system they feel 
provides the best value. Price differentiation used to exclude 
competitors is a clear abuse and maintenance of monopoly power, and 
the fact that Microsoft is engaging in it even before the trial is 
concluded demonstrates how toothless the ``settlement'' is.
    I would urge you to strike the current settlement and draft 
something which addresses Microsoft monopoly abuses in the past, in 
the present, and limits their ability to commit similar abuses in 
the future. Microsoft's disdain for the court is plain to see, and 
if the current ``settlement'' passes, I fear disdain for the DoJ 
will be far more widespread.
    Sincerely,
    Zimran Ahmed



MTC-00012883

From: Kurt Huhn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    I recently became aware of a deal between Microsoft and SGI 
wherein SGI has sold and transfered patents and knowledge 
surrounding OpenGL technology to Microsoft.
    This troubles me for several reasons, primarily because this 
allows Microsoft a great deal of leverage over independent hardware 
and software vendors. In the past, Microsoft has tried to squash the 
further developement of OpenGL by various hardware vendors through 
deals and brokerage with SGI. These largely failed though, thanks to 
a loyal base of hardware and software developers that recognized the 
superior technological capabilities of OpenGL, and continued in its 
developement. However, because of these deals, OpenGL lost it's 
foothold in the marketplace and Direct3D took over as the leading 
API for 3D visualization.
    Now it appears that Microsoft may be able to squash, once and 
for all, the only competitor to it's Direct3D API. If Microsoft own 
the patents to both Direct3D (part of the DirectX API), and OpenGL, 
it can strongarm hardware and software vendors into supporting only 
Direct3D. Through these tactics Microsoft will destroy the abilities 
of hardare and software vendors to choose the

[[Page 25667]]

API they develop with, and kill the only competitor to Direct3D. 
This deal with SGI flies in the face of anti-trust activities. It 
seems as if Microsoft cares not what our judicial system may decide, 
but only on gaining an even larger monopolistic market share in the 
US. We can be certain of only one thing from this deal, that 
Microsoft will use these patents to bully hardware and software 
vendors, and engage in unfair business practices while doing so.
    Please do not let this slip by unseen.
    Kurt Huhn
    Director of Systems and Support
    Bungo Inc.
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00012884

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think it's high time to settle this matter on the basis of 
what has been proposed.
    To prolong this matter and hear radical efforts to prolong it 
even more is a disservice to this nation and to its people.
    As a WWII enlisted combat Inf. vet of 3d ID (Audie's outfit)--I 
say enough yet!!!!
    We got enough enemies without our country trying to ``do us 
dirt'' to add our own home grown varieties to the pot.
    Cut it off!!
    Make an end of it!!
    Get on with the nation's business, stop ALL THE CRAZIES!
    COL. Dave Jolly Jr. AUS Retired. . . . . . 



MTC-00012885

From: P.Clemons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Feedback regarding this matter:
    I feel that the message has gotten through to Microsoft. Any 
further legal action seems to me to possess dubious value.
    The various software schema will evolve, regardless of 
Microsoft. Let them labor through a probationary period. They are 
under the scrutiny of the entire ``software world''.



MTC-00012886

From: Jake Kruse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:52pm
Subject: My Opinion
    I'll keep this short. . . .If your idea was to remedy the 
situation, you failed. Simply put. Please, please, if you are going 
to do something, do it. Don't plan to remedy the situation and 
instead just waste lots of time in the courtroom. Go over there and 
REALLY fix the problem of the MS Monopoly and the problems it has 
caused, causes, and will cause.
    Jake Kruse
    Teleperformance USA



MTC-00012887

From: william davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please support the Microsoft Settlement.
    Bill Davis
    Santee, South Carolina



MTC-00012888

From: Andy Boyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to take a moment and voice my strong desire to 
have the DOJ settle the Microsoft case once and for all. The case 
has been tried, appealed, and settled, but now it seems like 
Microsoft's competitors are trying to delay the proceedings for 
purely commercial reasons. None of these competitors (Netscape, 
Oracle, IBM, Sun, etc.) have any problem if they have a dominant 
market share in a particular product, but as soon as Microsoft 
starts to compete successfully with them they run to court to try to 
accomplish what they can't in the market place.
    I urge the DOJ to finalize this process as soon as possible and 
return stability and confidence to the technology markets, which is 
what is truly needed to enhance competition and innovation.
    Andy Boyd
    425.894.3415



MTC-00012889

From: J. Meier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:57pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
1932 Orchard Drive
Cedar Falls, IA 50613-5741
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the lawsuits against 
Microsoft over the last three years have been flawed and unfair from 
the start. Microsoft is a victim of political interests. 
Nevertheless, I am happy to see both parties have agreed upon a 
settlement and I hope that it comes to fruition at the end of the 
month.
    There terms of the settlement are more than fair. Microsoft has 
agreed to disclose internal interfaces and protocols, design future 
versions of Windows' so that competitors can more easily promote 
their own products, and form three-person team to monitor compliance 
with the settlement. These concessions and more should appease all 
parties and although flawed n many ways, I hope they will ultimately 
serve the IT sector in a positive way. I urge your office to hold 
the public's best interests in mind when deciding on whether or not 
to finalize this settlement. Please quell the nine states that are 
opposing and take a stance that gets government out of the way of 
big business.
    Sincerely,
    John Meier



MTC-00012890

From: Mark F. Matis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am thoroughly disgusted with the settlement that DOJ has 
negotiated with Microsoft. The lawsuit against the ``evil empire'' 
was one of the few decent acts of the DOJ under the previous 
administration. The proposed settlement will do nothing to fix 
Microsoft's criminal acts nor to prevent similar conduct by them in 
the future. Microsoft repeatedly lied outright during the 
proceedings. Microsoft has repeatedly ignored and undermined 
previous settlements. The lying and non-compliance were the reason 
Judge Jackson was righteously indignant. Yet DOJ has now effectively 
rolled over and invited Gates and Ballmer to ``do it to us one more 
time.'' Shame on you! I thank God that at least Florida and eight 
other states have enough brains to see the failure of your proposal, 
and enough guts to stand against this subversion of justice.
    --Mark Matis
    1002 Poinsetta Street
    Cocoa, Florida 32927



MTC-00012891

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft Settlement is totally inadequate and will 
not prevent Microsoft from becoming a monopoly.
    Thanks.
    Sandeep AgarwalPhone: 650 786 9932
    Sun MicrosystemsFax: 650 786 2512
    UMPK17-201Office: MPK17--2506b
    17 Network Circleemail: sandeepa@eng
    Menlo Park
    CA, 94025



MTC-00012892

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:03pm
Subject: Dept.of Justice.
    It would seem to me that everyone concerned would be eager to 
settle this long running suit that has prolonged the setback which 
has hurt the whole country. Even those states must be able to see 
that they have protested too long. Let us re,move this last thorn in 
the side of recovery.
    R.T. Kennedy



MTC-00012893

From: Joseph Glandorf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    For what it is worth, the prosecution of Microsoft was simply a 
political extortion game. The government attorneys' goal has never 
been justice or to make things better for customers of Microsoft, it 
has simply been a vendetta against the most successful company in 
the technological arena.
    Liberals have to scheme up these things from time to time to 
justify their hatred of capitalism. Since private lawyers will get 
another unprecedented windfall from this settlement (like the 
tobacco, asbestos and breast implant settlements/extortions)I 
suppose even the liberals will be happy with the outcome. Because, 
no doubt substantial funds from the lawyers' settlement monies

[[Page 25668]]

will find their way to Democratic politicians who will further their 
liberal interests.
    Is there anyone, anywhere, who seriously thinks this lawsuit has 
done anything but enrich lawyers?
    What a waste. Please simply end it.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Glandorf
    Boston, MA



MTC-00012894

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    It is past time to go on to other things. With the economy in 
such a bad way it is hard to understand why The DoJ wants to break 
up a great company like MSFT. Do you really want to add to the 
enemployment rolls?
    Mr Arthur Wolf



MTC-00012895

From: martin ferrini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the settlements terms of Microsoft's repeat offender 
status as a monopolist please consider the wisdom of forcing 
Microsoft to open it's API's to competitors as espoused by Scott 
Rosenberg in his article for Salon.com:
    http://salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html
    I couldn't have explained the need for such an apt and necessary 
remedy better myself.
    Martin Ferrini



MTC-00012896

From: Eric Close
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:13pm
Subject: Make MicroSoft pay for their strong arm tatics and no 
freebies to schools that squeezes Apple out either!
    You screwballs better not let M$ off the hook on this suit or 
you'll be loking for a job come the next election. It's blatantly 
clear what M$ did was dirty rotten business practices and, it's also 
clear that DOJ would like to let them walk with a slap on the wrist. 
Thank god 9 states are doing what's right because obviously DOJ 
can't / won't. We are watching you. . . 
    --Eric
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. 
In practice, there is a big difference.



MTC-00012897

From: Animal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello my Name is Justin Thomas (UK).
    My opinion on this matter is based upon my exposure to Microsoft 
over the last 7 years. I am a qualified BSc Software Engineer.
    As an end user I was very surprised with WindowsXP containing so 
many programs, which did not constitute core to its functionality. 
My fear is Microsoft are already rubbing salt into old wounds by 
being allowed to ship so much. Examples include, Rollback software, 
Firewall, Internet connection sharing, Instant Messenger, Photo 
Editing, CD burning. Now its true these add benefit but they do so 
much harm to other companies. If Microsoft believes their products 
are the best and we want them then they should have to sell their 
products as other companies have to. Allowing Microsoft to package 
all of these features into the OS means other companies are being 
denied purchases because many individuals lack the knowledge or are 
content with what is given. This is so unfair on many companies. I 
do like XP but I also like to purchase the software such as 
Firewalls or photo editors. Microsoft should never of been allowed 
to bundle the software in this manor because it gives them such an 
unfair advantage.
    On another note as a developer I can no longer write software 
that is truly cross platform. Microsoft seems to take the attitude 
?Microsoft way of the highway?. This really upsets me because XP has 
with drawn the Java Virtual Machine from its OS in an attempt to 
kill it, in favor of its new c# and .NET architecture.
    If they are not stopped soon there will be only one company 
remaining and we will all be at their mercy.
    I beg you to take some serious and powerful action to stop 
Microsoft in their tracks or at least make them adhere to the same 
market rules. Can you imagine a world with only one model of car? 
The one car fits all. This is where the computers users are heading 
because when Microsoft can?t have things their way they try and 
destroy it.
    Justin Thomas
    57 Longford Way
    Didcot
    Oxfordshire
    England
    OX11 7TN



MTC-00012898

From: Brisn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should suffer penalties for it's monopolistic 
behavior. Mr. Gates protestations notwithstanding.
    Microsoft has severely limited the software development of it's 
competitors. Take Apple Computer for example. The Judge ruled that 
Windows was not a copy of the Macintosh Operating System. With the 
deep pockets Microsoft has, it browbeats any and all competion in 
the marketplace.
    Brian Freeman
    [email protected]



MTC-00012899

From: Jason Shuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion the best way to settle this case is to get cash 
donations instead of hardware/software donations to give to the 
schools of this country. If the donation was the same value as that 
of the proposed hardware/software donations schools would have the 
right to choose individually how they want to spend the donations. 
By forcing Microsoft hardware/software onto a school district is 
doing absolutely nothing to resolve Microsoft's monopoly status. It 
merely serves to further that status just in a different sector of 
the economy. It serves to hurt competition in that sector and it 
serves as a ``pat on the back'' to Microsoft for doing such a good 
job as a monopolist. I don't believe that's the message that you're 
trying to convey at the end of this hearing.
    In summary, cash donations only. Not hardware/software.
    -Jason
    Jason Shuck
    Systems Administrator
    Department of Psychology
    University of Iowa
    http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu



MTC-00012900

From: W. Picou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I understand that the Department of Justice is soliciting 
comments on the proposed settlement in your suit at law with the 
Microsoft Corporation. Whether these comments are of any use will be 
for you to determine.
    If memory serves, Microsoft is accused of providing software to 
the general public without charge. If the suit had to do with the 
quality of the software being provided, I could see some basis for 
the proceedings.
    Unfortunately, what seems to have aroused Leviathan was the fact 
that the customer was not required to expend funds for the software 
received.
    Perhaps things are done differently in the District of Columbia, 
but in most of the country giving something of value away for 
nothing is not actionable--it may get you a psychiatric evaluation, 
but it generally doesn't land you in court (except as regards that 
visit to the shrink). However, the full weight of the government has 
been brought to bear in the interest of preventing exactly what? 
Microsoft's domination of the burgeoning badly-designed-barely-
functional-whoops-there-goes-another-blue-screen-of-death-operating-
syst em-wan nabe market? It may not of occurred to you, but did you 
ever consider that Microsoft owns the market segment it does because 
no other corporation will risk its reputation on such shoddy 
products. There are ancillary issues--accusations of price-fixing, 
strong-arm exclusionary contracts, etc.
    But none of these have been proved, nor are mostillegal--
reprehensible maybe, not illegal. Set these against a flawed 
premise; a blatantly, irrationally, biased judge issuing Through the 
Looking Glass rulings; and the spectacle of Microsoft competitors 
using the Department of Justice as a stalking horse. Whatever sins 
or peccadilloes Microsoft committed pale in comparison to the 
deliberate actions committed by those in charge of this case.
    If there were to be true justice in this case, the Department of 
Justice would proffer apologies to Microsoft, reimburse them for all 
of the expenses in this case, then initiate action against those 
state governments that are trying to blackmail Microsoft with 
further litigation. However, I am not foolish enough

[[Page 25669]]

to suspend respiration until this comes about. I would think a pro-
forma settlement would be acceptable, with no admission of 
culpability on either side. I would not think allowing (or 
requiring) Microsoft to stuff classrooms full of their product would 
be to anyone's benefit--the National Education Association is bad 
enough, why saddle schools with any more handicaps.
    I have some sympathy with the predicament your department is in, 
but it is tempered by the knowledge that it is in the main self-
inflicted.
    Sincerely yours,
    Wm. Picou
    305 West Oak Street
    Weatherford, Texas 76086



MTC-00012901

From: jpickens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my understanding that the anti-trust and anti-monopoly 
laws are designed to protect consumers from financial and market 
harm, not to protect competitors of the supposed monopolist from 
such harm. As such, the proposed prosecution, the actual 
prosecution, and the proposed settlements in the Microsoft case have 
all caused more financial and market harm than any possible 
monopolist practices apparent in this case. I have been a Microsoft 
customer since the days of the IBM MD-DOS product, and have seen 
their products consistently improve greatly, and the prices for said 
products either remain below the level of inflation, and in some 
cases go lower over time.
    I believe the US government's announcement that it was ``going 
after'' Microsoft has, to date, been a prime cause of the stock 
market's technology crash, and has cost me personally, many 
thousands of dollars. Give it a rest, If the US government doesn't 
want Microsoft to dominate the PC operating system market, then it 
should start buying Linux for its own uses, and leave the rest of us 
alone.
    John Pickens
    6 Treaty Elm Lane
    Shamong, NJ 08088
    (609)-268-0767



MTC-00012902

From: hugh nazor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The real issues in the settlement are those which do not allow 
Microsoft to continue to profit unduly from the locked in base it 
developed with its illegal practices. To do this, all Windows APIs 
must be made available to other software companies. Having these 
tools, new applications could be written which would allow truer 
competition.
    Additionally, Microsoft should not be allowed to use the 
settlement to create even more locked in clients. Giving large 
quantities of their machines and applications to schools would do 
just that. They would be using the settlement to gain an advantage 
in a market in which their products have not been as competitive as 
elsewhere. The effect would be a reward for yhe convicted party--
hardly justice.
    Hugh Nazor
    Santa Fe Solutions
    Santa Fe, New Mexico



MTC-00012903

From: Richard H. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:28pm
Subject: Settlement
    Please, Please, Please put aside the continuing litigation and 
settle this.
    Consumers will get much less out of this settlement than the 
attorneys for the STATES!
    What about the damage to one of the most successful 
corporations--does that matter?
    Lets put egos aside!
    Settle
    Richard H. Miller



MTC-00012904

From: Andy Leontovich
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  6:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I sincerely hope that the settlement results in a computing 
trust fund set up by the federal government. Microsoft should 
contribute to the fund and all K-12 schools who wish to use the fund 
should supply a proof of instructional and administrative benefit 
before receiving a grant from the trust fund. The schools should be 
allowed to purchase any computing technologies they choose. The word 
or concept of 'Microsoft' should not be mentioned or printed in any 
association of the trust fund. This will keep Microsoft's marketing 
ineffectual. It is essential that the administrators of the schools 
acquire the equipment and software that best suits the needs of the 
students and both students, instructor, and administrators are free 
from subliminal pressure.
    Allowing Microsoft to supply anything but money to a general 
fund will only extend its monopoly and its marketing practices.
    Thank you for allowing my two cents.
    Andreamon C. Leontovich
    Web Systems Administrator
    Washington County
    Oregon



MTC-00012905

From: Angela Zimmerlink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed
Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00012906

From: John Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Attention: Renata B. Hesse
    My Microsoft product experience:
    Poorly designed applications that are not user friendly;
    * Program bugs that are never fixed or addressed in so called 
upgrades; one example of many--automatic page numbering some 
sometimes works, sometimes not unless you print the pages in reverse 
order;
    * Virtually impossible to get a live Microsoft service person on 
the phone to answer questions that their web site or documentation 
cannot answer. Microsoft1s products perform consistently less well 
than other competitor1s (new and vanquished) programs yet they 
continue to retain a virtual monopoly in the market and drive out 
competitors. I would like to know what market mechanism permits them 
to survive so well? It cannot be direct marketing sales as I, an end 
user, have never seen a Microsoft sales person. It cannot be the 
quality of their products as they have remained consistently poor. 
In a normal market they should not be doing so well. One can only 
conclude that Microsoft is using other non-market means to retain 
their monopoly. It should be stopped.
    John W. S. Carpenter
    463 E. Washington Street
    Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
    Tel. 440-247-6744



MTC-00012907

From: Donald Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6'31 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement agreement appears reasonable and fair to all 
parties involved. I think the settlement is good for the consumer 
and this economy certainly needs resolution.
    Anne Frank,
    4700 Coho Lane,
    West Linn, OR 97068



MTC-00012908

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be required to open their APIs to the public.
    There should be monitoring into their business practices for a 
significant period of time, 5 years minimum.
    Their practice of forcing OEMs to pay for a version of Windows 
on every box sold should be eliminated entirely. Major vendors 
should be able to ship OS free boxes without a penalty.
    Their level of interoperability with other Operating Systems is 
questionable at best. Although much improved since the DOJ cases 
inception, it is still rife with hidden difficulties. They often 
mention their adherence to industry standards but in practice their 
is usually enough of a difference to make inter platform operations 
more complex than they need to be.
    I also feel that a cash settlement should be enforced. It should 
be restricted to cash only, in a trust fund to be overseen by an 
independent party. A party not easily influenced.
    Thank you
    Terry A. Zach



MTC-00012909

From: Irving MEYERSON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You have my complete support for the settlement agreement which 
you negotiated with the government.

[[Page 25670]]

    I wish the recalcintrant States which are still bedeviling you 
would give it up, all they are interested in is protecting 
industries in their States.



MTC-00012910

From: John Hornstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 15th, 2002
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I have read the Stipulation/Revised Proposed Final Judgment and 
Competitive Impact Statement.
    This looks like a good disposition of the Microsoft case to me. 
I'm not a legal or anti-trust expert, just a member of the public. I 
formerly worked at Microsoft for 8.5 years in product support, 
mainly in Developer Support. I talked to lots of software developers 
who were using Microsoft's Visual FoxPro development program.
    I don't know what the executives schemed on. I *do* know that 
Microsoft has for years made information available to the public, 
through MSDN and KnowledgeBase, articles on using the Windows API as 
is proposed to be required in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
section III (D). In fact, I remember looking over an article a few 
years ago on either Microsoft's TechNet or MSDN on how to code your 
own internet browser.
    I know from several of the training classes I had while employed 
at Microsoft that Microsoft has designed Windows to allow for third 
party components to be substituted in place of Microsoft's 
components. One that I remember is the file system. From reading the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, I see that this kind of design is 
important to the settlement. This is good, for both Microsoft and 
others. One concern I have on this topic is that hardware vendors 
will always put their own components into Windows and as a consumer 
I won't have the choice to purchase Microsoft's unaltered version of 
Windows. I see this happening already. OEM's put their own 
``interface'' on top of Windows. They stick all their promotional 
icons and services on the computer. I think Microsoft has tried to 
make sure I have the choice of using Microsoft's services or 
middleware by not allowing things like the Internet Explorer icon to 
be removed. Please don't make it so that consumers can't choose to 
have an unaltered version of Windows installed on a new computer 
when it is purchased. Sure, a consumer could just get a ``real'' 
copy of Windows from Microsoft but many times OEM's tweak Windows so 
that it works with their hardware or else various drivers have to be 
installed in a certain order when Windows is installed. This can 
create headaches for consumers trying to install an unadulterated 
version of Windows.
    In the Competitive Impact Statement, Part IV, section B(3) 
relating to section III.C of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, 
this is fine but OEM's need to be required to offer All-Microsoft 
Operating Systems, including All-Microsoft Middleware, if consumers 
want that on a new computer. This would be in addition to versions 
of Windows that have had all Microsoft Middleware removed and 
replaced with middleware du jour. I personally don't want to be 
forced to purchase a computer that only comes with, for instance, 
Netscape Navigator instead of Internet Explorer. Also in the 
Competitive Impact Statement, Part IV, section B(5) relating to 
section III.E of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, the section 
starting on page 37 with Microsoft Must Make Available All 
Communications Protocols: underlined: On page 38:
    ``Section III.E. will permit seamless interoperability between 
Windows Operating System Products and non-Microsoft servers on a 
network. For example, the provisions requires the licensing of all 
Communications Protocols necessary for non-Microsoft servers to 
interoperate with the Windows Operation System Products' 
implementation of the Kerberos security standard in the same manner 
as do Microsoft servers, including the exchange of Privilege Access 
Certificates. . . . ''
    This needs to be vice-versa too. Other network and server 
vendors such as Sun or Novell, need to allow workstations running 
Windows operating systems to access their servers as if the 
workstation was running Sun or Novell's workstation software.
    In general, the requirements that Microsoft's Middleware 
components can be easily replaced by non-Microsoft Middleware 
Products needs to be vice-versa also. Consumers need to be able to 
switch back to a Microsoft Middleware Product if desired. I believe 
this is in the Competitive Impact Statement, Part IV, section B(8) 
relating to section III.H. of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
under the underlined heading End User Access Requirements: in the 
second paragraph. (the third full paragraph on page 46).
    To summarize, I think this is a good settlement. It should be 
adopted. Figuratively speaking, the judge needs to bop the Attorney 
Generals of the states not joining in this settlement on the head 
with her gavel. They need to get with the program !!! This anti-
trust case has cost me personally and others much more in lost value 
in our retirement plans and other equity investments than any $10 
overcharge in the price of Windows could ever add up to. Thankfully 
we have an innovative and successful company like Microsoft. If 
Microsoft's competitors were to have the monopoly (and I don't 
really think Microsoft has a monopoly) you can be sure consumers 
would be paying more than $10 to much for an operating system. It 
would be more like $500--$1,000 to much. And computer use would not 
be nearly as widespread as it is now. I won't name any names here 
but they are well known and are at least millionaires themselves.
    John C. Hornstein
    205 Stilwell Oaks Circle
    Charlotte, NC 28212
    (704) 535-7733
    CC:John Hornstein



MTC-00012911

From: xiang min Deng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:36pm
Subject: Don't hurt Microsoft. It is a great America comp. You 
should proud of it
    Dear Sirs,
    Please do any favor to MICROSOFT.
    Thank you!
    Sincerely,
    Xiang min Deng



MTC-00012912

From: joe schmo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the documents related to the settlement and find the 
settlement unsatisfactory. The settlement is a slap on the wrist for 
a company already found in a court of law to violate anti-trust 
business laws. Is this justice or politics at work? The DOJ is 
playing a dangerous game with its credibility. It's no wonder the 
average American is apathetic and cynical towards our so-called 
``leaders'' in Washington.
    R.B.
    Algonquin, IL



MTC-00012913

From: John B. Osborne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has shown its clear disdain for the law in its actions 
following the last consent decree. This conviction is the only 
opportunity that consumers have to wrest control of the technology 
sector from a company that has dramatically slowed innovation and 
increased prices in an industry where prices have traditionally 
fallen.
    It is imperative that something be done, and the present 
settlement is too weak, lacks enough enforcement, and has too many 
loopholes. This weak settlement is unlikely to have any greater 
effect than the previous consent decree.
    Much stronger action is required. A stronger settlement is 
warranted and required by the facts in the case, especially after 
being upheld by a very sympathetic court of appeals.
    John B. Osborne [email protected]>
    http://www.simpsonosborne.com/
    Simpson & Osborne, CPAs A.C. Charleston, WV
    Phone: 304-343-0168 Fax: 304-343-1895



MTC-00012914

From: Darren Gibbs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear that Microsoft has violated anti-trust law by 
engaging in unsavory business practices for many years. I feel 
strongly that the company should be *punished* (not slapped on the 
wrist). I support:
    1. dividing the company into an operating systems group and an 
applications/services group.
    Windows should sink or swim according to its own merits, as 
should the company's applications and services. The monopoly profits 
from the operating system should not be used to unfairly support 
inferior products/services.
    2. requiring a large cash penalty (actual money, not a donation 
of goods and services)

[[Page 25671]]

to a trust which will go toward school technology purchases.
    Some of the enormous and illegal profits that Microsoft's 
business has generated should be taken from them. I can think of no 
better place to use the money than in our troubled school system.
    thank you,
    darren gibbs
    6251 Hillmont Dr
    Oakland CA 94605



MTC-00012915

From: Chris Jones
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    How to appropriately punish Microsoft for the abuse of power 
they have exhibited over the past decade:
    First, Split the company! Windows operating system should be one 
company on it's own.
    Microsoft Office programs should be it's own company Internet 
Explorer and other Internet related software should be one company
    Retail products such as Xbox and peripherals should be one 
company
    The Office suite of software should be forced to run on the 
three major platforms, Windows, Mac and Linux.
    If any monetary settlement is involved, it should be in cash and 
given to each school to use as they wish.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to buy up smaller companies only 
to disband them and cannibalize their assets.
    Microsoft should be made liable for any security flaws in it's 
software. If a hacker programs a virus that erases my harddrive and 
that virus works because of Microsoft's negligence, I should be able 
to sue Microsoft for damages. This is will make sure Microsoft does 
not release any software that is NOT secure.
    Stop Microsoft from hording money. They do not need the billions 
of dollars they have in assets. Make them operate without that kind 
of monetary power. There should be a law that states that if 
companies amass that much cash, that they have to start giving 
shareholders dividends or convert it into other tangible assets 
other than money.
    Chris Jones
    http://www.clarisay.com/businesscards/banner.jpg>



MTC-00012916

From: Johnson, Sean
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly, that is undisputed. The goal to the 
settlement benefiting consumers is to force Microsoft to open up and 
publish all of their API's. In addition, there needs to be a 
punitive settlement so as to force them to assist the marketplace. 
Microsoft needs to be forced to pay for its misdeeds. A cash 
settlement (4 to 8 billion) needs to be received from the company. 
These monies could then be given to the states in the case to 
establish accounts which schools can use for purchasing systems. The 
schools should then be allowed to use the monies as they see fit. 
They should engage in RFP processes with vendors then use the money 
to purchase that which would best benefit the schools.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to donate any software, 
operating systems or computers. The money should be used however the 
recipient sees fit. For the long term, the MS monopoly needs to be 
closely scrutinized so as to better allow for competition. This 
would be done by forcing publishing of standards (API's) so that 
applications can be more easily created by vendors as well as 
opening up the possibility for allowing other operating systems to 
run software designed for Windows.
    Sean Johnson, RN, BSN
    Manager, Outpatient Registration and Scheduling
    626/359-8111 x65787
    email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00012917

From: Bill Brewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the currently agreed to settlement that was made 
public between Microsoft and the Govt is a fair settlement.
    BIll Brewis
    [email protected]



MTC-00012918

From: Jim Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:44pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    Any settlement must incorporate a requirement that the 'Windows' 
operating system be open to and convenient to install other 
browsers. In fact, because it is such a dominant system, the option 
to use other companies' competing software products must remain an 
open and viable alternative.
    Microsoft (MS) cannot be allowed to block out competitors by 
bundling proprietary products in with their operating system. 
Provision must be made to easily install competing software if a 
company or final retail user is so inclined.
    MS company culture has got to change so that we don't keep 
coming back to this issue.
    Regards,
    /s/ James L. Wilson
    by bundling MS
    James L. Wilson
    2 Waterview Rd. #F-11
    West Chester, PA 19380-6357



MTC-00012919

From: MAG2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Here is what I would like to se happen in this case.
    With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized, 
documented and published, other software vendors could compete 
fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust laws are supposed to 
promote. We might then be faced with a welcome but long unfamiliar 
sight: a healthy software market, driven, as today's processor 
market is, by genuine competition.
    Also, I would hope any settlement would not let Microsoft assert 
itself into the education market where it does not have a monopoly 
YET. If Microsoft is to donate to schools, let it be in the form of 
money and not Microsoft products. Then the schools would be able to 
choose the systems and software that best meets their needs.
    Thank you and remember the little guys you are fighting for.
    Mich Gehrig
    Illinois



MTC-00012920

From: Jay Runquist
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Department,
    I'm just going to throw in my two cents on this fiasco. . . .
    I would make Microsoft be the funding for this economy. Help 
everyone out here by making them donate cash to our schools (they 
need it the most) for anything the schools need. New Macintosh 
systems, more teachers, larger schools or even more teachers. (Did I 
say that last one twice?)
    Bottom line, they were wrong and need to pay for it just like 
everyone else. Sure this is a special situation, but it shouldn't' 
be treated any differently. They are a monopolizing company with bad 
business practices. Will they stop? Their too big and that business 
practice is, plain and simple, how they do business. Can we help 
America out since they screwed up? You bet we can.
    We can't have them fold or get split up. They need to be just as 
supportive of the American economy as everyone else. They just need 
to be regulated a bit more.
    Thanks for your time,
    Jay Runquist



MTC-00012921

From: Stephen Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft needs to be broken up.
    It is quite obvious that they have used illegal tactics for 
promoting their software, and that they have a monopoly in the 
desktop and perhaps server market.
    If they are only imposed a financial penalty, they will continue 
doing business as they have in the past. . .  illegally.
    Stephen G. Butler
    Network Administrator
    Alexander Dawson School
    303-665-6679 x411
    [email protected]



MTC-00012922

From: David Stechmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would just like to comment on the Microsoft Settlement. I 
think it is good that the proposed settlement was rejected. It would 
have done little to punish Microsoft for its illegal activities and 
would have instead given them an unfair advantage in the

[[Page 25672]]

education market. Any settlement I believe should have the following 
objectives:
    1. It should in no way increase Microsoft's install base or 
influence in any way.
    2. It should promote more competition in the market. For 
example, if Microsoft is required to donate resources to schools, it 
should donate systems not associated with Microsoft in any way (like 
Mac OS X or Linux).
    3. If the settlement requires Microsoft to expend money, it 
should be of a significant amount to reduce Microsoft's ability to 
continue their monopoly.
    4. It should protect OEMs so they can make operating system and 
configuration choices without Microsoft's pressure (as would have 
still been present in the rejected settlement).
    Whatever the eventual settlement is, I think it should have one 
final requirement, that it is considered a bad idea by Microsoft. 
Based on how Microsoft's legal department has worked in the past, I 
think it is reasonable to say that any proposal Microsoft endorses 
will ultimately expand their monopoly. In addition, if they like the 
settlement, they will have no incentive to stop their anti-
competitive behavior. Like any convicted criminal, Microsoft should 
receive a punishment which will make them think twice about acting 
like they have (and continue to do).
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    David Stechmann



MTC-00012923

From: Ed McKinley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:50pm
Subject: Why not just leave Microsoft alone? They've done a 
wonderful job creating software that works! Use
    Why not just leave Microsoft alone? They've done a wonderful job 
creating software that works! Use your efforts against the Taliban 
and other real criminals!
    Sheila McKinley



MTC-00012924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    for what it is worth, if microsoft is to donate anything to the 
school systems in the U S that have technology needs, I would 
suggest a monetary fund be set up, administered by someone outside 
the system, similar to a trust fund, without exorbitant associated 
administrative costs, and this fund be used to acquire hardware and 
software as necessary for any particular school, DETERMINED ONLY by 
the school and it's teaching faculty, not microsoft.
    respectfully,
    Nick Baily
    Los Angeles



MTC-00012925

From: Ron Yochum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am submitting my opposition to the 
proposed settlement RE: DOJ vs Microsoft.
    If Microsoft is permitted to ``donate'' its services, software, 
and hardware to schools, they will be effectively locking out 
competition at the root of social and economic structure.
    By permitting Microsoft to donate to schools, the Department of 
Justice is actively facilitating the exclusive promotion of 
Microsoft products, further enhancing Microsoft's already gargantuan 
monopoly over technology and the internet. From the viewpoint of 
Microsoft, it is the best sweetheart deal ever.
    Level the playing field, escrow a couple billion in cash, donate 
it to whatever technology schools and inner-city groups see fit via 
an independent non-profit foundation.
    A cash settlement is the only real, fair, and appropriate 
option.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald C. Yochum, Jr.
    252 Wainwright Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15227
    412-884-8172



MTC-00012926

From: Jonathan Haddad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft's market dominance will only continue 
to grow unless it is split the way the original trial judge 
determined it should be. The many applications brought to market by 
for Windows by Microsoft itself is a huge influence to run the 
windows operating system. Splitting the company would remove the 
barrier to develop only for windows, and would encourage Macintosh / 
Linux development.
    Second, any donations of computers to schools should be the new 
iMacs (Microsoft Office). I think this would help stimulate the 
growth of other operating systems, while still providing an 
alternative for the student. These computers should be distributed 
to each of the levels of schools ( elementry, middle school, high 
school, and university.)
    I've spent a great deal of time in my life following the events 
of this company. I believe that the tactics that it has exhibited 
have stifled an industry. It has used its leverage from the 
operating system to dominate markets which it had never been 
involved in to begin with. Internet Explorer is an excellent example 
of this.
    I would hate to see such brutal market tactics go unpunished. 
Splitting up the company, and ordering the ports of all the 
Microsoft applications to 2 other platforms ( Mac, and a 
distributioin of Linux ) would be ideal.
    Jonathan Haddad
    98 Loomis Street
    Burlington, VT 05401
    [email protected]



MTC-00012927

From: Donald A. Fife
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its time to settle the matter now, further litigation is just a 
matter of putting off what should have been brought to a head long 
time ago. Look at the facts and make a settlement.
    Thank You.
    Donald A. Fife



MTC-00012928

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:02pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is in reference to the justice department's 
settlement with Microsoft regarding the antitrust issues raised by 
the morally and economically bankrupt liberal demarcates under the 
leadership by Joe Klien, who served an impeached president.
    The same justice department which refused to investigate Bill 
Clinton's shenanigans and Albert gore fund raising practices using 
the Buddhist temple and other more despicable acts, went after a 
successful corporation under a socialist populist guide. Egging on 
are the attorney generals of different states, who need a forum to 
run for the governor of their respective states. Those who extorted 
money form Tobacco industry under the guise of covering Medicaid and 
Medicare costs went in search of other lucrative extortion targets 
and found Microsoft, which became as damaging to consumers in their 
eyes as Asbestos, lead paint, tobacco and other extortable 
industries. In that way, salt, sugar, orange juice, carrots and any 
product existing on earth is potentially a target for the corrupt 
liberal democrats.
    I fail to understand that while fighting against Taliban and El 
Khaida, we still have to wage a legal war against our own 
hardworking innovative corporation like Microsoft, who have brought 
computers with in the reach of an average American like me.
    While the litigation was going on I heard statements to the fact 
that Microsoft was not a player in Washington, with influence 
campaign contribution and its own lobbyist, pr personnel and other 
assorted hangers on and social parasites. Thus our government and 
the political system has now become as a Mafia like extortionist, 
where every successful corporation like Microsoft has to pay a 
tribute and bribe to politicos to conduct its business. Under the 
settlement Microsoft has to divulge its source code and for the 
corrupt liberal demarcates even that is not enough. Why should it 
not protect its intellectual property which it has spent billions to 
develop Those unsuccessful companies like Novell who have not been 
successful in the market place, should pull political strings to 
hobble a successful corporation? In stead of encouraging them, they 
should be exposed, condemned and denounced. Why a law suit which was 
started under a draft dodger, pot smoker, financial swindler, 
morally bankrupt, anti business Clinton should be carried on by us 
republicans beats me.
    But some of these corporations are aptly known as rope sellers, 
Lenin say that capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will 
string their neck with. Thus any corporation or any aerate hard 
working

[[Page 25673]]

American who gives a penny to the liberal democrats is digging its 
own financial and personal grave.
    By giving political contribution to the domestic El Khaida and 
Talibansit like John Dingell, Henry Waxaman, Tom Daschel, Ed Markey 
and other fascists Microsoft created a problem which it is trying to 
solve through painful compromises with DOJ.
    Let us solve their problem once for all by agreeing and quickly 
implementing the settlement and stopping the extortion once for all.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00012929

From: zero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sirs
    I find myself compelled to write to you with a mixture of 
frustration, anger and disappointment. I am shocked to witness our 
judicial system and government failing to do justice on behalf of 
the people and companies they represent. If there ever was a 
monopolistic and criminal company, it would have to be Microsoft.
    Not only is our government failing to punish Microsoft, the 
government may be helping it expand its monopoly into areas such as 
education, which they do not control, at the expense of other 
companies and us all. A recently published statistic gives Microsoft 
over 96% of the market share, this ``alone'' should compel you in 
favor of a brake up. How can individuals and the market benefit? How 
can there continue to be diversification, innovation and 
competition? Please pause for a moment. . . 96%!!!
    It is time to stop ``compromising''. It is my hope to see this 
latest proposed settlement be rejected in favor of a severe and just 
solution. Microsoft is a ``monopoly'' and is using its vast 
resources to squeeze, or acquire, other companies out of business 
and penetrate new markets with unfair and criminal business 
practices.
    Microsoft's latest business and private licensing fees reflect 
its arrogance and dominance in the market place. Do the right thing 
and punish Microsoft, nothing less than a ``brake up'' will do.
    Thank you,
    Piero Favretti
    Norcross, Georgia



MTC-00012930

From: k.gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
308 West Clifton Avenue
North Augusta, South Carolina 29841
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you in support of Microsoft's antirust settlement 
with the federal government. I think it is extremely reasonable.
    Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating system 
products to the 20 largest computer makers on identical terms and 
conditions, including price. Also, 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 and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software 
within Windows. Additionally, the settlement will establish a 
technical committee to monitor its compliance with the settlement 
and assist with dispute resolution.
    I think this settlement gives the government what it wanted. 
It's time to move on, and I seriously hope this case comes to and 
end.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Gibson
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00012931

From: Bob Portal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While it is certainly no bad thing to allow schools more cash to 
buy computer equipment and software, I agree with what many have 
pointed out-- namely that it is utterly ridiculous to allow 
Microsoft to flood the market with refurbished Windows PC's and 
Windows only software, thus leveraging even more of a monopoly for 
themselves even as they attone for their sins! Apple is right to 
point out that education is one area where there is still healthy 
competition in the industry, and any such proposals from Microsoft 
would destroy Apple's chances of competing fairly in the education 
market. If you add that to the fact that it would not be a 
punishment for Microsoft, but (quite the contrary) a brilliant way 
to expand their dominance with very little real expense to 
themselves, it has to be seen that there is no way this deal can 
stand. If they were to give cash to education, with absolutely no 
strings attached other than it be used to buy IT equipment and 
software, that may be fair. But it would be preposterous to cut 
Apple and other non-Windows systems out of the market.
    BOB PORTAL
    Film Producer



MTC-00012932

From: Don Rozenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:10pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been found to be a predatory monopoly; it should 
not be allowed to use its monopolistic gains to extend and 
perpetuate its monoply. A large factor in its ability to continue it 
strangle hold is a small number of proprietary file formats. The 
most important one being the format of its Word document. Other 
important ones are the formats of other Office products. These are 
so important because so many people send Word documents to one 
another. Because the formats are proprietary, other software 
developers have not been able to generate completely satisfactory 
conversion programs that could run on other operating systems. There 
are indications that Microsoft is considering periodic licensing for 
its office products.
    Yours will be forced to by updates to look at documents that 
they have had for years.
    If other software developers were able to interpret word 
documents then other alternative to MS Word would be available and 
thereby competition would be enhanced.
    My suggestion is to force Microsoft do disclose its proprietary 
file formats especially for MS Office.
    Yours Truly,
    Don Rozenberg
    707-882-3601
    [email protected]



MTC-00012933

From: Vern Swerdfeger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:11pm
Subject: Settlement.
    My suggestion is about the same as the last one rejected except 
make them use anything but Microsoft software. (I am an Apple user) 
It would be fine to have them buy and give away thousands of Apple 
computers. Macintosh is a far superior system.
    Vern Swerdfeger



MTC-00012934

From: Ryan Sharp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ryan Sharp
6977 DD RD.
Niangua, MO 65713
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ryan Sharp



MTC-00012935

From: Gavin Davis
To: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25674]]

Date: 1/16/02  1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gavin Davis
P.O. Box 706
Merced, CA 95341
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gavin Davis



MTC-00012936

From: John Kern
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Kern
641 Mt Pleasant Rd
Washougal, Wa 98671
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    H John Kern



MTC-00012937

From: Carol Adams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Adams
2479 Peachtree Rd
Atlanta, GA 30305
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Adams



MTC-00012938

From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Pehl
8330 Hastings
San Antonio, TX 78239
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Pehl



MTC-00012939

From: Bonnie H. Merrill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bonnie H. Merrill
4900 Live Oak
Oakley, Ca 94561
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bonnie H. Merrill



MTC-00012940

From: Elsie Cresswell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elsie Cresswell
37 Poplar St
Badin, NC 28009

[[Page 25675]]

January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Elsie Cresswell



MTC-00012941

From: Alma Broumley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alma Broumley
530 HCR 4149
Grandview, TX 76050
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Alma Broumley



MTC-00012942

From: Gale DeVoar SR
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gale DeVoar SR
6214 Carew ST
Houston, TX 77074-7412
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gale DeVoar SR



MTC-00012943

From: tony gatti
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
tony gatti
14904 landmark dr
louisville, ky 40245-6525
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    tony gatti



MTC-00012944

From: Cynthia Gray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cynthia Gray
6 Jasper Lane
Beaufort, SC 29902
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Gray



MTC-00012945

From: Robert Green
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Green
2207 Cherokee Trl.
Valrico, FL 33594
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 25676]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. W. Green



MTC-00012946

From: Tom Hoban
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Hoban
10 Longboat Ave.
Barnegat, NJ 08005
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Hoban



MTC-00012947

From: Steven Shuler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Shuler
6152W 890N
Freetown, IN 47235
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 D. Shuler



MTC-00012948

From: Roger Holm
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roger Holm
1199 County Rd. 319
Westcliffe, CO 81252
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Holm



MTC-00012949

From: Al Rollans
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Al Rollans
788 w. westfield
Porterville, ca 93257
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Al Rollans



MTC-00012950

From: Harold Luehrs
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Luehrs
1039 PCR 412
Frohna, MO 63748
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust 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 25677]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Luehrs



MTC-00012951

From: Mary Baker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Baker
31 Holly Hill Drive
Mercer Island, Wa 98040
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Baker



MTC-00012952

From: Vonda McClain
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vonda McClain
717 Willow Brook Drive
Allen, TX 75002
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vonda McClain



MTC-00012953

From: Donald Campbell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Campbell
203 S Division St
Montour, Ia 50173
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Campbell



MTC-00012954

From: Harvey Hubka
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harvey Hubka
P.O. Box 22356
Lincoln, NE 68542
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harvey N. Hubka



MTC-00012955

From: E. L. Jolly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
E. L. Jolly
208 Rodeo Drive
Boerne, Tx 78006-5950
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition

[[Page 25678]]

in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. L. Jolly



MTC-00012956

From: Paul Maddy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Maddy
11417 Loron Rd
Morrison, IL 61270-9451
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Maddy



MTC-00012957

From: John Bowman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Bowman
3512 Roxford Drive
Champaign, IL 61822
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Bowman



MTC-00012958

From: Robert Austin
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/16/02  12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Austin
3801 Ryan Way
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
January 16, 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,
    Robert D. Austin



MTC-00012959

From: Tony K. Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern
    I appreciate the opportunity to present my thoughts on the 
Microsoft Anti-trust settlement and hope that you find them of 
value. Microsoft abused their privileged platform as the ``industry 
leader'' by directly forcing the hands of the PC ``OEM'' 
distributors to accept their licensing deals or suffer the 
consequences. These deals were so binding that the ``OEM'' 
distributors could not afford to exercise their right to allow other 
Intel based Operating Systems like BeOS (since bankrupt with all its 
assets purchased for $11M by Palm) to be included with their 
distributions with a boot-loader. As a highly technical computer 
user (programmer/system administrator) I saw the BeOS as an 
excellent next-generation operating system, one that could easily 
compete with Microsoft if the playing field was level. It was 
technologically superior to all home versions of Windows in the way 
in which it handled digital media and could have proven to be a low-
cost alternative if given half the chance. All that needed to be 
done was for the purchaser of a new computer to be able to choose 
which operating system they wanted to run when the computer booted 
up. This can be easily accomplished with free software known as 
``boot-loaders''. Microsoft was so frightened of this option, 
whereby the user could freely determine what operating system they 
wanted to use (and please note that multiple operating systems can 
co-exist on the Intel platform--I currently run Windows 98, Linux 
and BeOS on my Intel Pentium II-350MHz PC), that they legally 
mandated that the ``OEM'' distributors MUST only allow Microsoft.
    There is an excellent article at Byte Magazine by Scot Hacker, a 
computer expert and noted computer author:
    http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/0827--
hacker.html which provides the following details of Microsoft's 
actions with respect to ``boot-loading'': ``So why aren't there any 
dual-boot computers for sale? The answer lies in the nature of the 
relationship Microsoft maintains with hardware vendors. More 
specifically, in the ``Windows License'' agreed to by hardware 
vendors who want to include Windows on the computers they sell. This 
is not the license you pretend to read and click ``I Accept'' when 
installing Windows. This license is not available online. This is a 
confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and computer vendors. 
You and I can't read the license because Microsoft classifies it as 
a ``trade secret.'' The license specifies that any machine which 
includes a Microsoft operating system must not also offer a

[[Page 25679]]

nonMicrosoft operating system as a boot option. In other words, a 
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also 
offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware vendor does not get 
to choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell ? 
Microsoft does. ``
    This ``trade secret'' is direct proof of Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices and inevitably contributed (significantly) to 
the death of BeOS. Although I have numerous licensed Microsoft 
products in my home and installed on my Windows 98 partition of my 
computer I will never again purchase a Microsoft product nor will I 
upgrade to the new Windows XP operating system that is arguably one 
of the most intrusive efforts in the history of computing. Their 
.net strategy is consistent with their earlier behaviour and is an 
attempt to destroy the ``open source'' computing community by 
forcing consumers, including big businesses, into their proprietary 
solution. I plan on switching directly from Microsoft to Apple as 
soon as Apple has their new iMacs (or G5 systems) available for 
purchase. This is a decision I would not have had to make if 
Microsoft was not in a position to directly impact a user in a 
foreign country by their monopolistic practices which ultimately led 
to the computer software I am/was forced to use. This behaviour must 
be stopped before there are more examples of Microsoft's abuse of 
their privileged monopoly. The only solution to this is to punish 
Microsoft for each and every computer shipped that the ``OEM'' 
distributors were forced to load Microsoft-only operating systems. 
The best manner in which to enact this punishment is to ensure that 
those people directly affected by Microsoft's practices are those 
that are the recipients of the penalty on Microsoft. Therefore I 
recommend that all computer users in the United States who were 
affected by Microsoft's practices be allowed to switch to Apple 
computers at Microsoft's expense. Microsoft would be responsible for 
purchasing the hardware, purchasing equivalent functioning software 
(e.g. Microsoft Office 2000 for Windows == Microsoft Office for OS 
X), and providing (via a third party) technical support. This way 
those people most affected have the choice of opting in for Apple or 
choosing to stay with Microsoft. What could be more ironic for 
Microsoft than to once and for all allow the users to have the say 
they were denied before.
    Thank you for your time. Sincerely,
    Anthony K. Olsen
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,beos@birdhouse. org@inetgw,. . . 



MTC-00012960

From: Linda Batdorf
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Batdorf
1940 Rainbow Dr.
Clearwater, FL 33765
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Batdorf



MTC-00012961

From: Julie Bodnar
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Julie Bodnar
3475 McFarlan Road
Cincinnati, OH 45211
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Julie M. Bodnar



MTC-00012962

From: DOUGLAS MAYHALL
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOUGLAS MAYHALL
11848 W. 187 TH. ST.
MOKENA, IL 60448
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 MAYHALL



MTC-00012963

From: Dennis Storck
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Storck
5230 W Hwy 98
Panama City, FL 32401
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the 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 25680]]

valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating better 
goods and offering superior services to consumers. With government 
out of the business of stifling progress and tying the hands of 
corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will 
once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the 
reins off the high-tech 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 Storck



MTC-00012964

From: Donald Ulsh
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Ulsh
926 W. Gleneagles Dr.
Phoenix, Az 85023
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Ulsh



MTC-00012965

From: Gordon Dotson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gordon Dotson
P.O. Box 273
Enterprise, UT 84725
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon Dotson



MTC-00012966

From: Norman Moors
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norman Moors
411 Barnett Stret
West Palm Beach, FL 33405-4801
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Norman Moors



MTC-00012968

From: Jeff Garrett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeff Garrett
P.O. Box 25722
Little Rock, AR 72221
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Garrett



MTC-00012969

From: Judy Johansen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judy Johansen
33096 Hwy E 34
Castana, IA 51010-8732
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of

[[Page 25681]]

stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Johansen



MTC-00012970

From: Don Cummings
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Cummings
6006 Pimenta Ave.
Lakewood , Ca 90712
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Cummings



MTC-00012971

From: Jerry Warren
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Warren
123 W. Walnut St.
Wake Forest, NC 27587
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 G. Warren



MTC-00012972

From: Peter Pacheco
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Pacheco
751 Swan Av
Miami Springs, FL 33166
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Pacheco



MTC-00012973

From: Kuhlman Kenny
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kuhlman Kenny
4180 Oakland Dr.
Olive Branch, MS 38654-9700
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    K. C. Kenny



MTC-00012974

From: John D. Beals
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John D. Beals
646 SW Rimrock Dr.
Redmond, OR 97756
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating 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 25682]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 D. Beals, D.D.S.



MTC-00012975

From: Mary LaRocca
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary LaRocca
115 San Luis Way
Placen tia, CA 92870-1835
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mary C. LaRocca



MTC-00012976

From: Blanche Pennino
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Blanche Pennino
10 Ashley Drive
Holmdel, NJ 07733-2058
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Blanche Pennino



MTC-00012977

From: Leonard Bogard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard Bogard
11275 Matthew Way
Armona, CA 93202-0670
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard W. Bogard



MTC-00012978

From: Eric Russell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Russell
1117 Stadium Drive
Parkersburg, WV 26101
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eric D. Russell



MTC-00012979

From: Roseanne Cusick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roseanne Cusick
PO Box 271
Bayfield, CO 81122
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
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 25683]]

    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Roseanne Cusick



MTC-00012980

From: Michael Roberts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Roberts
228 Grand Canyon Dr.
Madison, WI 53705
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Roberts



MTC-00012981

From: Glenda Bowen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenda Bowen
198 Fanning Bridge Road
Fletcher, NC 28732-9203
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Glenda Boen



MTC-00012982

From: mike gardner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mike gardner
p.o. box 406
solsberry, in 47459
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Gardner



MTC-00012983

From: Edward W. Toll
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward W. Toll
100 Meadowlark Loop
Lafayette, LA 70508
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 W. Toll



MTC-00012984

From: John O;Neill
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John O;Neill
1038 Oakwood Drive
Glenolden, Pa 19036-1513
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not 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 25684]]

products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J.O'Neill



MTC-00012985

From: Frank Bradley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Bradley
481 Crystal Lake Dr.
Melbourne, Fl 32940
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayersO dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 T. Bradley



MTC-00012986

From: Karen Vernor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Vernor
P. O. Box 8
Wimberley, TX 78676
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Vernor



MTC-00012987

From: Vernon Spicer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vernon Spicer
4126 Woodcreek Drive
Dallas, TX 75220
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon Spicer



MTC-00012988

From: Herbert Waid
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Waid
PO Box 1844
Moultrie, GA 31776-1844
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rev. Herbert Waid



MTC-00012989

From: Christine Gilbert
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christine Gilbert
413 Jennifer Lane
Rogersville, MO 65742-9743
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of 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 25685]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Gilbert



MTC-00012990

From: Marsha Nelson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marsha Nelson
310 Teakwood Drive
Youngsville, LA 70592
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Nelson



MTC-00012991

From: David Butts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Butts
4103 summertime parkway
Louisville, KY 40272-4880
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Butts



MTC-00012992

From: Diane Sluder
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Sluder
4458 Johnny Cake Ridge Rd.
Eagan, Mn 55122
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Sluder



MTC-00012993

From: Tomi Porterfield
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tomi Porterfield
803 Birchview Court
Pearland, TX 77584
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Tomi Porterfield



MTC-00012994

From: James DeChaine
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James DeChaine
1405 Heidi Place
Windsor, CA 95492-7986
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a 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 25686]]

companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 DeChaine



MTC-00012995

From: donald sexauer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
donald sexauer
80 park avenue 17n
ny, ny 10016
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E. Sexauer



MTC-00012996

From: Ray E. Hughes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray E. Hughes
2846 Verity Ln / POB 600
Baldwin, NY 11510-0600
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E. Hughes



MTC-00012997

From: Peter Finnigan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Finnigan
5 John Drive
Annandale , NJ 08801
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Finnigan



MTC-00012998

From: Shane Crabtree
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shane Crabtree
515 Parkwood Drive
Panama City, FL 32405
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Crabtree



MTC-00012999

From: Nancy VanAntwerp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy VanAntwerp
2121 Washington St
Columbus, IN 47201-4115
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors 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 25687]]

up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 VanAntwerp



MTC-00013000

From: Delores Stafford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Delores Stafford
16909 Gunboat Circle
Maurepas, LA 70449
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Delores Stafford



MTC-00013001

From: Laurie Al-Hawaz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laurie Al-Hawaz
3667 West 128th Street
Cleveland, OH 44111
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Laurie Al-Hawaz



MTC-00013002

From: Frances Turner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frances Turner
5900 Jaycox Rd.
Galena, OH 43021-9334
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 M. Turner



MTC-00013003

From: Deborah Heilman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Deborah Heilman
63 Clifton St.
Manchester, NY 14504
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 J. Heilman



MTC-00013004

From: Michael Crass
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Crass
3831 Marshall Place
Gary , IN 46408-1926
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a 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 25688]]

companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Crass



MTC-00013005

From: Donna Christianson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Christianson
314 April Lane
Nashville, TN 37211
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Christianson



MTC-00013006

From: Richard Kleinpeter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Kleinpeter
202 Ranch Rd.
Marion, La 71260
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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.H. Kleinpeter



MTC-00013007

From: (E.) Maria Crider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
(E.) Maria Crider
227 Glenwood Dr.
Palestine, TX 75801
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Maria Crider



MTC-00013008

From: David Rogers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Rogers
1007 Brown St
Jacksonville, TX 75766-3319
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Rogers



MTC-00013009

From: Harold Sharp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Sharp
14207 Cypress Green Dr
Cypress, TX 77429-6300
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors 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 25689]]

up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E Sharp



MTC-00013010

From: PATRICIA CORONA
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PATRICIA CORONA
124 WHITE STORK DRIVE
SLIDELL, LA 70461
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 CORONA



MTC-00013011

From: Edward Breza Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Breza Sr.
2521 SE 19th Circle
Ocala, FL 34471-1003
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Breza Sr.



MTC-00013012

From: Barbara DeReuil
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara DeReuil
4750 N.E. 25 Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 DeReuil



MTC-00013013

From: Vincent J. Socci
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vincent J. Socci
21 Moosepac Lane
Oak Ridge, NJ 07438
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent J.Socci



MTC-00013014

From: Chuck & Betty Wood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chuck & Betty Wood
2886 Ravenwood Drive
Snellville, GA 30078-3749
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will 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 25690]]

    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chuck & Betty Wood



MTC-00013015

From: Christine Parfait
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christine Parfait
3446 D Benoit Road
Lake Charles, LA 70605
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Parfait



MTC-00013016

From: Constance Still
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constance Still
3815 SW 106th Street
Seattle, Wa 98146-0984
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Constance S Still



MTC-00013017

From: Frank Megow Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Megow Sr.
2912 NW 16th
Oklahoma City, OK 73107-4719
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. Megow Sr



MTC-00013018

From: david winarsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:15pm
Subject: End the Litigation
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    Dear Sirs:
    Please end the litigation on the Microsoft case. The settlement 
is fair and in the best interest of the people.
    The money you spent on litigation would serve the people better 
if it was sent on:
    Healthcare
    Social Security
    Child care credit
    A tax credit for single parents and the list is endless get the 
point?
    thanks,
    [email protected]



MTC-00013019

From: Nilda Hermann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nilda Hermann
14359 S.E. 6th #204
Bellevue, WA 98007
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Nilda Leila Hermann



MTC-00013020

From: Michelle Kichman

[[Page 25691]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michelle Kichman
1102 Knightbridge Ct
Graham, NC 27253-9564
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle Kichman



MTC-00013021

From: Genevieve Hagerty
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Genevieve Hagerty
1539 63rd Street
Somerset, WI 54025
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Genevieve Hagerty



MTC-00013022

From: Eugene A. Norby
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene A. Norby
11718 E.36th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99206-5939
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Norby



MTC-00013023

From: Eileen Farley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eileen Farley
426 Pelican
New Orleans, LA 70114-1018
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eileen Farley



MTC-00013024

From: Patricia Haug
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Haug
23067 Nature View Drive
Sedro Woolley, WA 98284-7805
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 and Patricia Haug

[[Page 25692]]



MTC-00013025

From: Palmarin Merges
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Palmarin Merges
3830Harrison St. Apt. 104
Oakland, CA 94611-5097
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Palmarin P. Merges



MTC-00013026

From: Derek Kimmel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Derek Kimmel
20693 Glen Brook Terrace #203
Potomac Falls, VA 20165
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Derek Kimmel



MTC-00013027

From: George Stegmaier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Stegmaier
255 Welter Drive
Wood Dale, IL 60191
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Make Lawers wealthy?
    George Stegmaier



MTC-00013028

From: Rosalie Creamer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosalie Creamer
4724 Southwind Blvd.
Kissimmee, FL 34746
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rosalie Creamer



MTC-00013029

From: Michael Stewart
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Stewart
2991 Forest Hills Drive
Redding, CA 96002
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 25693]]

    Michael T. Stewart



MTC-00013030

From: shelley owens
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
shelley owens
14904 landmark dr
louisville, ky 40245-6525
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    shelley owens



MTC-00013031

From: Kenneth Patterson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Patterson
21658 Sedco Heights Dr.
Wildomar, Ca 92595
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E. Patterson



MTC-00013032

From: W. Bryant Hickman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. Bryant Hickman
14602 Claycroft Ct.
Cypess, TX 77429-1884
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Bryant Hickman, P.E.



MTC-00013033

From: Bob and Betty Holden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob and Betty Holden
5456 Peaceful Lakes Drive
Jamesville, VA 23398
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bob and Betty Holden



MTC-00013034

From: SUMNER THOMPSON
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement iT LOOKS GOOD TO ME.
SUMNER THOMPSON
8 Honan Rd
SCARBOROUGH, ME 04074
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers 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 25694]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    SUMNER L THOMPSON



MTC-00013035

From: john kinsella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must say I'm extremely disappointed with this ``settlement.'' 
The Clinton administration worked very hard to prove that Microsoft 
hold monopoly power and abused that power at the expense of it's 
competition. As soon a the Bush administration took office, it seems 
as if the Justice Department became very willing to give into 
Microsoft's wishes, to let Microsoft continue to wield it's monopoly 
power unfettered. I had hoped that the Justice Department would take 
this opportunity to take a stand. A monopoly is not good for the 
market, for the industry, for the economy, for the country. This 
settlement provides almost no putative measures, something necessary 
to ``bring them down a notch.'' The (illegal?) hoards of tens of 
billions of dollars in cash Microsoft holds makes and monetary 
putative measures useless. The only thing that can change the 
business practices of Microsoft, making the industry more 
competitive and open, is to attack the one thing that could actually 
hurt Microsoft, opening up it's Window's API's. These are the only 
things that guarantee Microsoft it's monopoly power and the only 
thing that can break that power. I'm not talking about some minor 
``promise to make some API's more available to some people. . . '' 
promise. In some way Microsoft must be made to make it's platform 
completely open, that anyone can have the same access to the 
underlying code as Microsoft itself has. And if it's found that 
Microsoft has hidden or not opened up those API's completely, there 
must be some other, very strong response by the government, 
including monetary punishment and the threat of a possible breakup 
of the company (ala AT&T and the proposal by the original trial 
judge.)
    Those are my thoughts on this remedy. I things it's completely 
useless, does nothing to protect the public nor creating a more 
comptetitive market, and is full of so many loop holes that it would 
be easily circumvented by Microsoft. I urge you to reconsider your 
position and take a stronger stance with Microsoft. That's why this 
case was started in the first place.



MTC-00013036

From: Penny Woods
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:18pm
    I would hope this could be resolved quickly by both sides in a 
fair way. Further litigation is not favorable in view of present 
market conditions & the need to move on.



MTC-00013037

From: Douglas J. Jamieson II
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas J. Jamieson II
8391 20th Ave
Sears, MI 49679-8048
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. Jamieson II



MTC-00013038

From: William Futrell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Futrell
1703 Ulster Dr.
Elizabeth City,, NC 27909
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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.&Mrs. William R. Futrell



MTC-00013039

From: Harold J. Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold J. Thompson
845 Lone Rock Road, PO Box 117
Glide, OR 97443-0117
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. THompson



MTC-00013040

From: Mr & Mrs Harley W Earles
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mr & Mrs Harley W Earles
11774 Sunview Street
Lakeview, OH 43331
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high 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 25695]]

courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy can finally 
breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 & Mrs Harley W. Earles



MTC-00013041

From: Robert Maynard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Maynard
8420 Sunset Drive
Orlando, FL 32819-3227
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    MSgt Robert E. Maynard, USAF, Ret.



MTC-00013043

From: Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems as though the reason Microsoft is on trial has been 
forgotten. Plain and simple Microsoft is a Monopoly and action needs 
to be taken to stop them from continuing to play that roll. Do not 
allow Microsoft to bribe their way out of this.
    The previous solution of breaking Microsoft into separate 
companies seemed to be more on track. What happened to that line of 
thinking? Was it clouded by money that Microsoft was throwing 
around? Please do what needs to be done. Justice needs to be served.
    Ryan



MTC-00013044

From: Ryo Chijiiwa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:18pm
Subject: suggested remedy
    In order to prevent Microsoft from engaging in anti-competitive 
monopolistic practices, I would suggest one or more of the 
following:
    (1) Order Microsoft to OpenSource all versions of the Windows 
operating system currently in use as well as all versions that are 
released in the next 5 years. All other major operating systems 
(UNIX, MacOS X) have a major portion of the source code open to the 
public. This is the best way to ensure all API's are open to the 
public, and may even benefit the Windows platform, as it will be 
subject to peer review.
    (2) Order Microsoft to open up proprietary document formats used 
by MS Office and other software products like Windows Media Player. 
This will allow competitors to create compatible software products, 
making it easier for users to switch from (or to) the Windows 
platform.
    (3) Order Microsoft to adopt standards and technologies overseen 
by such organizations as the W3C and IEEE to ensure better cross 
platform compatibility of software and hardware products, as well as 
network services.
    I would like to point out that Microsoft is a repeat offender, 
and preventing Microsoft from behaving similarly in the future will, 
at the end, help other businesses as well as consumers. Punishing 
Microsoft for hurting the industry will not have any negative 
consequences to our economy, nor will it stifle innovation.
    Regards,
    Ryo Chijiiwa



MTC-00013045

From: Wyatt Earp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    Lizard on a Stick A.G.
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=``US-ASCII''
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
    I'm a computer systems administrator for a private school. I 
have used computers for 17 years. I vote and pay taxes and I would 
like to comment on Microsoft and a potential settlement.
    1. Microsoft has shown that it will not work fairly with other 
software or hardware companies, so Microsoft must publish the 
applications programming interface or API for all of it's operating 
systems for the next 10 years, so that other Operating Systems will 
be assured of inter-operability with Microsoft Operating Systems.
    2. Microsoft also needs to publish it's in-house APIs so other 
software companies are on the same level playing field as Microsoft.
    3. Microsoft also needs to release the source code for it's 
browser, Internet Explorer, because that is the root of the current 
situation. Those are the things that need to be done so that 
Microsoft is punished for it's illegal actions.
    They committed an illegal act, punish them.
    Mark Buchholz
    555 NW Park Ave
    Portland OR 97209



MTC-00013046

From: James Turner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Turner
2709 Taylor St
Hollywood, FL 33020-4333
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Please stop wasting my money and hindering the economic recovery 
of the United States of America.
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 R. Turner



MTC-00013047

From: Clay Leeds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please be strong in your actions against Microsoft. I urge you 
to exercise your power

[[Page 25696]]

to ensure that Microsoft does not retain its monopoly over the PC 
industry. Please require Microsoft to fully standardize, document 
and publish the Microsoft Windows APIs, as well as the Microsoft 
Office APIs, so that other software vendors can compete with 
Microsoft on these fronts. I believe that Microsoft unfairly abuses 
its monopoly power to keep down legitimate technology companies. In 
addition, Microsoft has flagrantly disregarded previous attempts at 
stemming the tide of limiting Microsoft's monopoly.
    Please do the right thing for the good and honest citizens and 
corporations of the United States of America.
    Thank you.
    Clay Leeds
    Web Developer/Programmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00013048

From: Ron Severdia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Surely there are political forces at work behind the proposed 
settlements to the Microsoft antitrust suit. How else could one 
explain the leniency and reckless disregard for protecting the 
general public against such business practices? Are we to allow this 
to continue? Have big businesses intimidated the federal government 
to the point they are granted ``carte blanche''?
    The current resolution under debate is more than unacceptable. 
It is a farce because it, in no way whatsoever, represents a 
punishment for Microsoft1s **proven** (again, I emphasize PROVEN) 
illegal acts. It is a resolution that will only continue to foster 
Microsoft1s growth and stronghold on the PC market (especially where 
it1s most deficient---the education sector), despite it1s lack of 
innovation and morales. Their casual attitude towards the DOJ (and 
other legal entities opposing them) and their boldface lies (they 
told the court that, ``sure, it would supply a version of Windows 
with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but gee, sorry, then 
Windows wouldn't work.'') shows nothing but contempt for the free-
market society which helped them build up to where they are; the 
same free-market society they misused and abused along the way.
    I am extremely thankful for the 9 states that have had the 
insight, intelligence and courage in refusing to accept this 
situation as is (being from California, I am especially thankful we 
are one of those 9.) It is only because of them I have had any faith 
that this matter will be resolved fairly and according to what is in 
the best interest of society, and most importantly our country. I 
hope that this kind of unwavering determination will ensure justice 
prevails.
    I urge you to resolve this matter in a manner that may not be 
consistent with the lingering political motives, but in a fashion 
that will be in the best interest of the American people.
    Sincerely,
    Ron Severdia



MTC-00013049

From: Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disappointed by the penalties not imposed on the software 
giant. The software giant does not need to propagate it's muscle by 
giving out and providing computers to the poorest schools. If that 
was the case. . . LET these poor schools make the choice of which 
operating system they wish to have in their school system. Besides. 
. . if they are in fact the poorest schools how can some of these 
schools justify an IT person or persons on staff to maintain Windows 
machines. The alternative Operating systems offer much more less 
maintenance and will not hurt the schools that are poor. This is not 
a choice. . . it is stuffing every school with an operating system 
that it is forced to use. . . without given the chance to choose.
    I say fine them (very steeply). . . . Allocate the money to the 
poorest schools and let the people make the bids and offers. . . let 
the school make the choice. Do not let Microsoft FORCE FEED their 
power upon these people. . . it will just give them more reason. . . 
for dominance. That is the very thing that defeats the purpose of 
the suit. As a consumer that is unfair and uncalled for.
    A Disgusted Citizen



MTC-00013050

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am concerned not only that the Microsoft antitrust case has 
dragged out for so long, but also that the settlement which is now 
pending threatens to be overturned if the correct course of action 
is not pursued. Nine states with a vested interest in the Microsoft 
case are currently seeking to overturn the settlement and to seek to 
reopen the antitrust suit against Microsoft. This has gone on long 
enough. I do not believe it is necessary to waste the time and 
resources of the Department of Justice, Microsoft, and the plaintiff 
states any longer. I urge you and your office to carefully consider 
the implications of extended litigation before any decisions are 
made.
    First of all, additional litigation is unnecessary. Microsoft, 
while it may have been in violation of antitrust laws at the 
beginning of the suit, has agreed to terms in the settlement that 
would prevent them from further antitrust violations. For example, 
upcoming versions of Windows will now be formatted in order to 
support non-Microsoft programs and products, and various line code, 
interfaces, and protocols will be disclosed to Microsoft competitors 
so that they will be able to create workable interfaces between 
their programs and the Windows operating system. Microsoft has also 
agreed to license applicable intellectual property rights to all 
third parties working under the terms of the settlement.
    Secondly, further litigation is unwise. I do not believe it is 
in the best interests of the economy, the consumer, or the American 
IT industry to continue to drag out the suit any longer. It is a 
waste of time and money and it will lead to no good. The settlement 
reached is just to all parties involved and needs no further 
modification. Microsoft and state and federal resources have been 
tied up for too long in this suit. The American economy, as well as 
the American IT industry, have been hurt by this stagnation. This is 
unconscionable. The Department of Justice in antitrust cases is 
supposed to work in the public interest. As far as I can determine, 
the public has only been hurt by the lack of swift conclusion. I 
urge you and your office to take a stand and allow the settlement to 
pass without further delay.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    John Knox
    106 Sprout Road
    Muncy, PA 17756
    ph:570-546-2012
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013051

From: Pamela/Robert Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair and let's settle this matter at once. 
Enough is enough, settle. I believe it sould never have been filed 
in the first place.



MTC-00013052

From: Patrick McCloskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft include the top 2 competing products in Windows 
XP to finally give consumers REAL choice, for example:
    Make them include QuickTime and Real Audio along with their 
Windows Media Player in a standard XP installation.
    Make them also include NetScape and Opera along with their 
Internet Explorer web browser during a standard XP installation.
    Apple has been doing this with their Mac OS installations for 
years and it has been great for both the Mac user community 
(consumers) and the Mac market overall. There's no reason that 
Microsoft shouldn't do this freely for consumers too.
    Patrick McCloskey



MTC-00013053

From: Scott Clawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Any settlement with Microsoft *must* contain provisions to curb 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. I personally favor a solution 
that would break up the company into at least two companies; one 
providing operating systems and the other providing applications 
such as Microsoft Office. Here is a recent example of why I feel 
this way: Yesterday I ordered a computer from Dell. My *only* choice 
when ordering one of their

[[Page 25697]]

standard configurations would be to get Microsoft Office. I could 
*not* order a computer without Microsoft Office, except perhaps by 
calling Dell on the phone and insisting.
    In the last 8-10 years, every computer I've owned has come with 
a copy of Microsoft Word. Is it any wonder that companies like Word 
Perfect and Lotus have essentially disappeared? Why would I go buy a 
copy of Word Perfect when I've already been forced to buy a copy of 
Word? Microsoft's monopoly on operating systems gives them the 
ability to force hardware manufacturers like Dell to bundle 
Microsoft Office with every PC they sell.
    I repeat, that any settlement with Microsoft must contain 
provisions to stop this kind of anti-competitive behavior.
    Thank you for allowing me to submit my opinion.
    Scott Clawson
    Datafest Technologies, Inc.



MTC-00013054

From: Chris Charuhas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put Microsoft's APIs and Office file formats in the 
public domain.
    Thank you,
    Chris Charuhas
    Chris Charuhas / Visibooks
    http://www.visibooks.com
    [email protected]
    804.278.9188 phone



MTC-00013055

From: Jesse Spears
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I'm writing to you to protest the current proposed Settlement in 
the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    Microsoft has shown time and time again that they will NOT 
compete fairly if allowed any leeway in how to do that. They will 
corrupt, twist, and abuse any loopholes given to them.
    The current proposal does not go nearly far enough in 
establishing a fair and even playing field for Microsoft and their 
competitors. It essentially leaves Microsoft free to abuse their 
competitors as they have been doing for almost 20 years.
    I will now quote a recent article from Salon.com, because the 
author says this better than I can:
    There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last 
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that 
is sitting on a cash hoard of tens of billions of dollars. But 
intellectual property--that's something Bill Gates and his team 
really care about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to 
restore competition in the software market might actually get them 
to change the way they operate.
    With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized, 
documented and published, other software vendors could compete 
fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust laws are supposed to 
promote. We might then be faced with a welcome but long unfamiliar 
sight: a healthy software market, driven, as today's processor 
market is, by genuine competition.
    Please reconsider your current plan. It will not solve anything, 
or provide any relief or protection from Microsoft's heavy handed, 
anti-competitive practices.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Spears
    Austin, TX --
    Jesse Spears
    SpearSoft http://www.spearsoft.net>



MTC-00013056

From: Kyle Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that handing Microsoft a 2 year moratorium on licensing 
out Windows would be very fair. They would be allowed to sell the 
software on retailer shelves only. This would allow them access to 
an open market, while giving all competitors 2 years to catch up on 
market share. This would totally open up the licensing market MS 
used to monopolize the industry.(ie. cheaply bundling their software 
in with manufacturers PC's.) This would have to be announced in 
advance to give all parties a lead time. If I can help just email.



MTC-00013057

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    If you guys want to find out some ani-competitive tactics 
Microsoft pulled, you should look into the nonsense they were 
pulling after 1993 or so when they divorced from IBM on the OS/2 
project. Among other things they bought the only company that made a 
program to install OS/2 applications, and cancelled the OS/2 product 
within days. They also bullied computer manufactures with threats of 
higher Windows liscenses if they dared bundle OS/2 with there 
machines. As an early developer of OS/2, this had a direct impact on 
myself and countless other OS/2 ISV's most of which are out of 
business now.
    OS/2 Warp (Version 3.0 of OS/2) was a real threat to Microsoft 
and they did everything they could (legally or illegaly) to sink the 
product.
    -Adam Hall



MTC-00013058

From: Patrick McCloskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Keep competition alive by forbidding Microsoft from selling to 
certain markets. Keep them out of the Education market, period. Let 
someone else (Apple) dominate that market space and keep a 
competitor strong.
    Patrick McCloskey



MTC-00013059

    From: robert wehrle
    To: Microsoft ATR
    Date: 1/16/02  7:42pm
    Subject: microsoft settlement
    Can you provide name and address of Florida Atty. Gen?
    Bob



MTC-00013060

From: Steve Justis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please help make the computing and operating system market fun 
and vibrant again by making Microsoft less powerful by reducing the 
power of their monopolistic power over the industry. Here are some 
ideas:
    1. Make Microsoft ship full featured versions of all there 
desktop software for ALL competing Operating Systems. This is not 
just MS Office but ALL of their desktop applications like MS 
Project, Visio, Publisher, etc. . . 
    2. Make Internet Explorer FULLY COMPLIANT with WC3 standards
    3. Make Microsoft to fully integrate Suns JAVA in all versions 
of the windows OS
    4. Create a committee that reviews MS behavior on a quarterly 
basis
    5. Make all Microsoft network protocols and file systems cross 
compatible with Linux and the Mac by default.



MTC-00013061

From: Morrie Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The DoJ should not punish Microsoft for perceived but unproven 
monopolistic practices. Microsoft's competitors are the only ones 
who will unfairly profit.



MTC-00013062

From: John C. Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    It seems to me that the government should be in the business of 
fostering an environment where business can flourish and not in 
tearing them down. Most of the state attorney generals do not want a 
settlement because they are protecting businesses which are 
domiciled in their state. It is mostly jealousy and not business 
protection. For the life of me, I can not see how the government can 
make me share something for which I worked and invested my money to 
develop. That is what they appear to be doing in the case of 
Microsoft.
    I urge the Justice Department to settle this case as proposed 
and let everyone get on with their business. There are always those 
who want more, whether it is Microsoft competitors or victims of the 
World Trade Center.
    Sincerely yours,
    John C. Long



MTC-00013063

From: projektor Films
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25698]]

    Dear Sirs:
    I am very troubled as an early adopter of technology and a user 
of multiple platforms that MS has consistantly robbed, raped, and 
forced independent developers of software and hardware to often go 
against their best interest.
    Just look at their implementation of Java, QuickTime, and Real 
software for how they have stunted the consumers right to choose.
    Further, this company is not an innovator, instead they have 
cobbled together (badly) a group of programs that they mostly have 
not developed in house, and the macro language they used (vbasic) 
leaves all users open to easy hacking and abuse.
    Also, the pitiful use of lawyers to block the truth, and more 
importantly, consumers ability to use other programs or deselect 
programs forced upon the Windows desktop. i.e., Please examine 
Macintosh versions of MS Project, Links, Excel, Automap(renamed), 
all developed on Mac and ported THEN DISCONTINUED or not updated for 
YEARS. Also, one need only to examine Netscape's browser, the top 5 
hardware manufacturers ability to change the startup or desktop, and 
features continue to be built-into the OS (which wasn't an OS before 
win 2000) and the inability to purchase an Intel based machine 
without their software pre-installed.
    Freedom demands that you examine ways to make this rogue company 
pay CASH damages, as this is the only way a juggernaut of this size 
can be slowed, and please limit any and all abilities for this 
company to restrict our TV Console and Game Console industries with 
their underdeveloped, buggie, and sub-par software offerings.
    I have been in this industry for nearly 20 years, and this 
company would be a better competitor if it's wings and the egos of 
the operating officers were severely curtailed for their illegal and 
pervasive ignorance of both the spirit and the letter of the laws of 
the United States.
    You are our last, best hope: capitalism is no excuse for immoral 
gross negligance, and this administration cannot look the other way 
when the ``little guy'' is beat up by the fat, slothful bully.
    thank you for you time and attention.
    cjso
    [email protected]



MTC-00013064

From: John Mistura
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mistura
1175 adele ln.
San Marcos, CA 92078-4572
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    I have a choice if I want to buy this product or not. I don't 
have that choice with gas bills, and food etc. Stop wasting my 
money. I never received a raise. The politicians can give themselves 
a 5,000 dollar raise, and than tax my family more to pay for this 
and that. Whatever! STOP. . The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Mistura



MTC-00013065

From: Bela Beik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a consumer, using Microsoft product. I am satisfied with 
all my purchased MS product.
    It is time for the DOJ to get off the back of MS.
    Bela Beik
    Boonton, NJ



MTC-00013066

From: William M. Benjamin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This company should be broken up into three separate companies. 
It is a shame that the Justice department will let them walk.



MTC-00013067

From: Wayne Pinkham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I am a computer consultant who has experience in teaching and 
supporting computers in a private school for learning disabled 
students. My experience in computer consulting includes technical 
support for main frame, Unix, Microsoft products and computer 
networking support. I am a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and 
provide free technical support to computer users in my free time. 
Much of the free technical support I provide is for users who have 
problems with Microsoft products. I have been following the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust Case and I am glad to see that what would have 
been the ideal settlement on the side of Microsoft has been 
challenged. Microsoft's proposed settlement would have not penalized 
Microsoft, but in fact would have been a great benefit to Microsoft. 
Their proposal should have raised many questions about the 
intentions of such an action and the real cost to Microsoft for the 
proposed settlement.
    If Microsoft were to donate software to schools systems they 
would be given an unfair advantage in marketing their software. I 
have personally seen this type of marketing launched be Apple 
Computer Corporation in the 80s. Apple provided all sorts of 
incentives and reduced prices to school systems to entice them into 
purchasing computers for the classrooms. The goal of this marketing 
ploy was to develop the incentive for parents of the students to buy 
apple computers. This method helped Apple Computers to increase 
their volume of sales. This settlement would allow Microsoft to use 
the same tactics in their punishment. Microsoft could introduce new 
software for the students use and then subtly encourage the parents 
to purchase the new software. This is a net plus to Microsoft which 
in fact nullifies and penalties.
    If the judgement is to punish Microsoft then it should be felt 
by Microsoft and its corporate officers. If Microsoft is allowed to 
donate software then all they have to do is manufacture CDROMs at a 
cost of less than $1.00 per copy and the charge the the market value 
of the software against their settlement. This is a great deal for 
Microsoft as they could charge of $89 for each copy of Windows 98, 
between $269 and $299 for each copy Windows.XP Professional, and 
between $189 and $199 for each copy Windows.XP Home Version. This 
would effectively produce a pennies on the dollar settlement. This 
would ultimately be cheaper than an advertising campaign. The net 
result is that Microsoft effectively feels no pain with this 
punishment.
    Microsoft's launch of Windows.XP would appear to the average 
American to be a clear case of Contempt of Court. Microsoft 
Corporation does not have to comply with the court rulings, just as 
it does not have court good feelings from their product users.
    I would like to see real penalties applied to Microsoft for 
their actions. The break up of Microsoft would be no more adverse to 
the economy than the breakup of AT&T. Would we have the telephone 
and Internet services at the low rates today if AT&T was allowed to 
continue to operate without the breakup? If Microsoft were to be 
broken up more innovators would be able to step up and compete. If 
the breakup is not done then the least that should happen is that 
Microsoft should be forced into making Windows 95, 98 and Windows NT 
public domain. Other innovators could then improve those products 
and offer an alternative to Microsoft.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Pinkham



MTC-00013068

From: E. STANFIELD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25699]]

    Settle this, and let the attorney generals of the states hang. 
Perhaps they'll go back to work on important things in their states 
and quit trying to make headlines.
    I suggest that finally this Microsoft problem be solved at once. 
It's about time success was valued, however, in the future if 
Microsoft gets too far out of line, then clamp down again.
    Earl W. Stanfield



MTC-00013069

From: Wesley Horner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:02pm
Subject: microsoft stettlement
    If Microsoft is allowed to buy SGI 3D patents they will own the 
defacto standard that is in direct competition with their 3D 
offerings. This is going to make developers HAVE to use microsoft's 
version if microsoft decides to limit access to these technologies 
this tying people to their platform. http://www.theregister.co.uk/
content/54/23708.html
    I cannot support or endorse such a move and I hope that my 
government agrees.
    Wes
    [email protected]



MTC-00013070

From: Jim Dyson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank God something is finally being done with microsloth. I am 
for anything that breaks microsuck's back. Please make it real. make 
them give out the API's and tell them to stop messing with Java. 
Install Netscape on every new pc, let OEM's put on what they want. 
microsloth is just a proprietary os. Can you believe that they 
wanted to tell the doj what their punishment is to be? Everywhere 
you look is microsuck this or that. . .
    thanks for your time
    Jim Dyson



MTC-00013071

From: Dennis (038) Diana Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement should be something along these lines:
    To compensate for past abuses:
    1. Heavy $ fine that is proportional to the $ gain they have 
achieved as a result of these practices. This somewhat corrects for 
penalty for past sins.
    To avert future abuses:
    2. They should have to publicly publish all APIs in the Windows 
Operating Systems.
    3. Require them to release applications programs on ALL 
platforms simultaneously with equivalent features. They should not 
be allowed to schedule releases for a competing platform at much 
later dates than the applications on the Windows platforms. They 
have used this quite cleverly in the past to yank other companies 
around by threatening to drop support for other platforms (with 
their Office Suite) when other platforms need the Windows 
applications to exist because their predatory practices have created 
the monopolies. This will remove the ``platform preference'' issue 
that Microsoft so cleverly uses by creating second-rate applications 
for other platforms. I cite their slow native support for the 
Macintosh PowerPC chip by not have any native applications for 
almost two years after most other companies. When Office Word 5.0 
appeared, it was doggedly slow. The point of that was to slow the 
adoption of the PowerPC and to impede Apple from making gains 
against the Intel Pentium Chip.
    4. Require them to publish all file formats for all their 
applications. This will allow competitors to write similar programs 
that can compete with Microsoft's and yet interact with Microsoft 
software at a file level. Currently no one can do that because 
Microsoft keeps those things secret. Some reverse engineering of 
these file formats has been done, but with limited success. 
Microsoft keeps changing them so that if someone were to figure them 
out, that knowledge would be obselete possibly on the next release.
    Microsoft and its CEO have revealed to the world during the 
anti-trust trial of what liars and thieves they are. Please impose 
severe punishment on them and rid America's computing desktop of the 
Microsoft criminals. They are a blight on technological development!
    Robert Wright



MTC-00013072

From: Ned Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement should consist of something other 
than Microsoft products. If Microsoft is willing to ``give'' a 
billion dollars of product and software to schools, why not make it 
products from those who directly compete with them. After all, the 
idea is to penalize them for breaking the law, not reward them with 
market share.
    Ned SimpsonH: 408.445.8289
    c/o 656 Lanfair DriveC: 408.823.5196
    San Jose, California
    Postal Code 95136



MTC-00013073

From: David Lentz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This note is in response to the request for public comment on 
the Microsoft-DOJ ``settlement''.
    Let's see if I understand the settlement purchased by 
Microsoft--after being convicted of predatory business practices and 
abusing their monopoly power, Microsoft will:
    (1) Not be impeded in any way, shape or form from using their 
existing monopoly power to extend their influence to other 
industries by restrictive covenants and bundling products to 
exclude/crush competitors
    (2) Not be required to compensate either the companies damaged 
(Netscape comes to mind) or the consumer for damages inflicted by 
their crimes. Indeed, so far as I can tell, our government's 
position is that the Microsoft monopoly and absence of competitive 
drive in the small computing marketplace is the best thing that ever 
happened to us.
    (3) Be forced to push ``one'' billion dollars, into one of the 
few markets not completely under their control (education), in a 
manner virtually guaranteed to give them a dominant influence, 
leaving them with ``only'' a 35+ billion dollar cash position.
    (4) Be subject to the smallest degree of oversight possible, by 
a handful of individuals with no degree of control over the actions 
of the company they are overseeing. I expect the nation's news media 
to be a more effective control, but only to the degree that 
Microsoft cares what is said about them. If past reflects the 
future, they couldn't care less what anyone thinks about the way 
they conduct their business, so long as they are free and 
unencumbered.
    Is that about the size of it? Do I understand it? I guess my 
reaction is that Microsoft got one hell of a bargain for their 
investments in the US Government (meaning the Executive branch, 
Legislative branch, and Judicial branch). I figure that the 
additional markets and profits this ``settlement'' will acquire for 
them will more than pay for their legal expenses. Looks to me like 
in the case of ``Microsoft vs the DOJ'', that regardless of the 
``official verdict'', Microsoft won and the goverment is begging 
their forgiveness via this ``gift'' of a settlement.
    Just my opinion and comment.
    David Lentz
    15126 Count Fleet Ct
    Carmel, IN 46032
    [email protected]



MTC-00013074

From: Margaret or Glenn Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I believe that, in a capitalist society, it is the role of 
government to stay out of private industry. I feel that the 
government's antitrust suit against Microsoft is a direct violation 
of the ideals that have established this country as the most 
powerful nation in the world. I am pleased that a settlement has 
finally been reached, so we can finally put this foolish business 
behind us.
    This suit has done irrefutable damage to the United States 
economy, and if we continue with this litigation we will only be 
hurting America more. As we are faced with a possible recession we 
need to take stock of the damage that this could cause if it is 
pursued any further. Microsoft is one of the largest employers in 
America. When times are bad economically you do not attack 
employers. Microsoft is also the leader of America's fastest growing 
economic sectors. This suit has caused the IT industry to flounder 
allowing room for overseas competitors to elbow their way into a 
field that we should easily be able to dominate.
    I thank you for the work that you have done in bringing forth 
this settlement. I hope that you will have the foresight to protect 
free trade and capitalism for America's future.
    Thank you.

[[Page 25700]]

    Sincerely
    Glenn Johnson
    P.O.Box 1057
    Dunlap, TN 37327-1057



MTC-00013075

From: Paul Bunker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
    As a customer purchasing system software I have no complaint 
with Microsoft. Actually they are their own greatest competitor. 
They do have serious competition. Only their competitors are 
complaining about them. Anyone who doesn't like Microsoft can use 
Linux. Get off Microsoft's back. The Governors are simply looking 
for more money to squander like they are squandering the tobacco 
money. Take Microsoft's settlement offer and get on to prosecuting 
some real criminals.
    Paul Bunker.



MTC-00013076

From: Barb Hansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have finally settled 
their three year long antitrust case. We are writing to you to give 
our support to this settlement. It has, in our opinion, gone on far 
too long. Any further litigation would damaging to America's economy
    We personally think the antitrust case was more an attempt by 
Microsoft's competitors to disarm the company than any unfair 
business practices. ``Sour grapes'' is the only term we can think of 
to describe the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    Overall, Microsoft has been very fair. Microsoft has agreed to 
release its intellectual property in the internal interface for the 
Windows operating system; license other intellectual property; open 
up Windows to modifications to let its competitor's more easily 
promote their products; and subject itself to a technical committee 
checking for compliance with the agreement.
    It is time to move on. America has rebounded from last 
September. We have a great deal of optimism about our economy. We 
need to let Microsoft get back to what it does so well--innovation 
in the technology field. We urge you to give your support to the 
Microsoft settlement. We do.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara & Richard Hansen
    101 Ballard Way
    Onalaska, WA 98570



MTC-00013077

From: Paul Ochsner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    leave them alone to do business. .!!!!
    if you look at the begining of the fall of the tech sector, it 
was at the time the Clinton administration started harassing 
Microsoft. . leave them alone. let them do business. .
    Paul Ochsner
    Salem, OR



MTC-00013078

From: emil meek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am personally really aggravated by the callous attitude that 
Microsoft directs toward these proceedings. I think that the 
proposed settlement by Microsoft to give computers and (virtually 
free to them) software is arrogant. I feel that they cannot continue 
to leverage market shar3/dominance in their favor to crush 
differentiation and competition.
    Emil Meek,
    Kingston, WA



MTC-00013079

From: hal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement does not adequately 
protect consumers from Microsoft's heavy handed tactics. They 
continue to bundle product and coerce consumers. To ensure adequate 
competition, they should be required to publish, with an appropriate 
lead time, the specifications of all the proprietary file formats 
and API's. This would give competitors a chance at competing in an 
otherwise closed environment controlled by Microsoft and protected 
by their monopoly. --
    [email protected]



MTC-00013080

From: David M. Ensteness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    As a college student at a private liberal arts college in 
Minnesota working in the Information Technology Dept. I have 
witnessed first hand the outcome of Microsoft's unfettered actions. 
Our campus suffers directly because of the built-in incompatibility 
of MS products to work with competitors' products including JAVA, 
QuickTime, Mac OS, Linux, BSD UNIX, Solaris, and other backbone 
technologies.
    Last year our campus made a rush move to upgrade from Windows NT 
4.0 to Windows 2000 because of the promise that we would be able to 
integrate it into our network structure more smoothly. This has not 
been the case. While the problems with NT rendered much of the 
campus network of 4,000 terminals unusable for our 2,400 students 
and many of our faculty, Windows 2000 has been a mixed blessing. 
Campus wide incompatibilities still loom large and prevent a true 
cross-platform environment [which we have been able to create 
between minority alternative platforms] from existing. Our reliance 
on MS software due to their various monopolies has ensured that we 
may not choose to migrate away from the Windows platform.
    I have read and reviewed the published information regarding the 
MS settlement agreed to by MS and the DOJ and have contacted my 
Attorney General regarding the matter. I do not agree with the 
settlement proposed by the DOJ and the nine states which have 
decided to settle. I do agree with the settlement proposed by the 
nine states continuing the case which was refused by Microsoft.
    I feel that MS must be forced to provide an unbundled version of 
Windows to OEMs, open source code to monopoly tied software such as 
Windows, Internet Explorer, Office, and others and license other 
companies to produce fulling compatible versions of MS software for 
both Windows and other platforms. These licensees must be given full 
and complete access to any proprietary code that relates in anyway 
to the product they are to produce so that they are able to have an 
equal chance to develop quality software.
    As Always,
    David M. Ensteness
    Apple Core Chairman
    GAC MUG
    CC:attorney.general@ state.mn.us@inetgw, [email protected].



MTC-00013081

From: polly a. woodress
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    Thanks very much for giving the public the opportunity to voice 
opinion in the settlement of the MSFT case. The entire circumstance 
around this case is very upsetting. Some say it all came about 
because MSFT and Bill Gates didn't contribute enough to political 
campaigns, or have a huge lobby in Washington representing their 
interest. Some say it was the jealous competitors who did give 
political contributions and have a strong lobby in Washington that 
got the Justice Dept. to go along and punish MSFT. I personally hope 
none of this is the case, because if it were the case it would go 
against every principal, in this opinion, that our country is 
founded on. Americans today are so cynical and non-trusting of our 
government, including the Justice Department, that somewhere, 
someday, someone must have the courage to stand up and say: ``This 
case was dreamed up, schemed up by some special interest. It has no 
merrit. It was intended to destroy and/or punish a very successful 
corporation of which we are all jealous. Many of us in the D of J 
have never worked outside government, we are easily swayed by one 
sided propaganda and lacking experience in the outside world of free 
competition, we misjudged the collapse of our ``Ivory Tower'' 
thinking. We were wrong. We want to correct our wrong.
    Microsoft has done no wrong, but instead has contributed vast 
qualities of knowledge and productivty, while giving our entire 
country unbelievable economic gains.'' Yea! Sure! The chances of 
that happening are zero. But someway, we must stop letting the 
Government destroy everything that is good for a majority of our 
nation. Remember what it was like in the 1970's and 1980's, American 
had almost given up on everything! Then comes the 1990's and just

[[Page 25701]]

when we get a leg up, the Justice Department come crashing 
everything down! If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. The Justice 
system says that Bill Gates and company have done TERRIBLE thMSFT 
tnbspericans! Mercy! I wouldn't be e-mailing you now if it wasn't 
for Mr. Gates and Company. . . My 80 year old Father would not be 
trading stocks nbspne now if it hadn't been for Mr. Gates & Co. I 
remember when personal computers first came out. . . We had to learn 
DOS commands, then we bought our software thnbspould just do one 
tiny thing for hundreds of dollar$, with hundredsnbsp dollar$ 
merritpenbspor each application we wanted to use. I remember! It was 
terrible. Everyone used something different, nothing was compatible, 
and most everything didn't work well. And, I don't get it. . . I 
looked at other operating systems as I bought more computers through 
the years. . . I looked at the Apple Mac system, I looked at the IBM 
OS2 system. . . How can the government say that MSFT is the only 
system? MSFT just kept adding new things that made computing easier, 
faster and cheaper for the customer. We had a choice! We made the 
choice and the choice was MSFT! Don't punish them for that!
    Whatever you do, please don't impose such a harsh judgement that 
will make competition with other countries impossible! I am a cattle 
rancher and through the years I have sit by and watched the most 
productive agricultural county in the world be destroyed by 
government rules, laws and treaties. We can't compete anymore. . . 
the cost of labor, taxes, insurance, equiptment are so high we can't 
produce anything as cheaply as it can be imported from other 
countries. As we in agrilculture slowly go broke, it will just be a 
matter of time before the U.S. is dependent on other courtries for 
all our food. Do we really want to start technology down that road 
also? We all know that Japan, China, India or some other country 
will grab the leadership vaccum that MSFT leaves and the good ole US 
will once again forfit the world leadership position in yet another 
area!
    What will be left in this country to make a living? Surely there 
can't be enough government jobs for everyone? Just look ahead. . . 
look down the road before making a punishment decision for MSFT or 
any American company. Just look at the companies over the years that 
our Government has attempted to punish as monopolies. Take Standard 
Oil. . . take Ma Bell. . . Government tinkers, imposes restrictions, 
punishments, etc., until either the companies go under, or the 
Government will give them permission to put the company together 
again. Look at the telephone companies, the big ones grabbing the 
small ones up until now there doesn't seem to be any profits for any 
US phone companies, but hold your hat for a foreign replacement. 
Look at the oil companies. . . didn't I recently read that all the 
Standard Oil Companies would soon be back under one Exxon-Mobile 
umbrella soon? ``The more things change, the more they stay the 
same.'' I just don't get it? Can someone explain? So, please let the 
``free marketplace'' work it's magic and tell us what we like and 
what we don't like WITHOUT government interfearance.
    Thanks, Polly Woodress



MTC-00013082

From: Philip Corlis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Since Microsoft was found to have violated US law, it is 
important to penalize them in a meaningful way. Their past history 
regarding legal actions suggests that any ``soft'' approach which 
involves their promise to change their business practices for a 
light penalty simply hasn't worked. Their corporate culture views 
kindness as weakness and encourages further rule bending and 
monopolistic corporate expansion from the top down--simply a new 
opportunity to quash competition and possibly keep new or better 
ideas from the marketplace. The only real solution is to provide a 
penalty scaled to their corporate wealth, a direct connection 
between ``risky'' or possibly illegal corporate decisions and 
meaningful and significant corporate losses.
    I applaud the judge's decision not to allow Microsoft to use 
this legal problems as an opportunity to expand into new markets at 
an insignificant cost to them. Any solution to the Microsoft issue 
should impact them--not their competition. There is little 
competition left in the marketplace and the court has, and should, 
keep this fact in mind. The world of computing could be made better, 
stronger, and even less expensive for all americans if more, rather 
than less, competition were in the marketplace.
    I encourage the court to create a cash dollar penalty scaled to 
Microsoft's corporate wealth--to be paid in one lump sum--with the 
moneys to be given the states involved in the litigation with the 
stipulation that the moneys be used to support technological needs 
of their public schools and local libraries. In this way, Microsoft 
will be penalized and the moneys used for the public good.
    Thank you for this opportunity to provide ideas to the court as 
this case moves towards its conclusion.
    Respectfully:
    Philip Corlis



MTC-00013083

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:28pm
Subject: letter
2000 Beechwood Road
Hyattsville, Maryland 20783
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to inform you of my thoughts on the recent 
settlement between Microsoft and the Justice Department. I am happy 
that a settlement could be reached in the three-year antitrust case 
against Microsoft. This case has been going on for three years now, 
and must come to an end soon. Microsoft is not getting off easy like 
it's critics want you to think. The company will be making numerous 
changes to its business practices that will restore fair competition 
and prevent future antitrust violations. For example, Microsoft has 
agreed to document and disclose various interfaces that are internal 
to Windows' operating system products for use by its competitors.
    Also, Microsoft has agreed to allow computer makers to remove 
the means by which consumers access various features of Windows, 
such as Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, Windows Media 
Player, and Windows Messenger. Furthermore, a technical committee 
made up of three software engineering experts will monitor 
Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
    I ask that you accept this settlement, and not pursue any 
further action against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Samir Puri



MTC-00013084

From: Gilles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not help but be offended by the settlement in the case of 
Anti Trust vs Microsoft. The proposed settlement does absolutely 
nothing to help third party developers. First of all, let us 
remember that third party developers have managed to write software 
without the help of Microsoft for long before the anti-trust case.
    Second of all, the problem that seems to be clear to the 
hundreds of individual creative programmers I deal with everyday, is 
that Microsoft has the engineering task force to look at an 
innovative product, duplicate it in a record time (so far no harm 
done), and use their marketing power but most of all, illegal (often 
verbal) binding agreements to dislocate the competitors product by 
offering their alternate solution in ways that are more than 
questionable.
    Going back to the beginning of Windows, we find their very first 
illegal monopoly offense against Disk Operating System's competitor 
Digital Research with DR-DOS. Microsoft would force OEMs to buy 
their inferior MS-DOS with the argument that the OEM would have to 
pay more for MS-Windows alone that they would if they distributed 
MS-Windows bundled with MS-DOS. Then they took on Networking 
companies like Novell by offering Networking services such as those 
found in Windows for Workgroups and Windows NT. This same 
monopolistic approach has been clearly seen as a pattern since then 
in cases like their Disk Compression technology, Windows Media 
Player (competing with Real Networks and lots of others), Netscape 
Navigator (probably the most evident case of monopolistic action) 
and many others.
    What saddens me the most, is to realize that most of today's 
websites can not be viewed properly unless they are visited with 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer. The World's Wide Web which started as 
an open project to allow anybody from any machine, anywhere in the 
world to view anybody else's web site, has now become a Microsoft

[[Page 25702]]

only world. By offering tools--first for free--that allowed anybody 
to create professional websites quickly (tools that use Microsoft 
proprietary extensions), Web sites that can now ONLY run on 
Microsoft servers and be viewed best only with Microsoft Internet 
Explorer have flourished at a rate so exponential that it is 
becoming more and more difficult to enjoy browsing the web unless 
one is using Microsoft tools.
    As an avid defendant of a free world wide web, overseen by an 
open group dedicated to keep it free from vendor specific 
extensions, I am saddened to realize just how much Microsoft managed 
to turn the web into a Microsoft only monopoly.
    I urge you to please reconsider the settlement offering. Forcing 
Microsoft to be more friendly with their competitors will not 
prevent them from going after these same markets. Is it necessary to 
remind ourselves that everything Microsoft has to offer today 
(including Windows itself) did exist before they made it, from the 
mind of some other creative individuals? I Could go into details and 
show you where, everything they make today, comes from and how they 
managed to turn all great computer inventions into a Microsoft only 
platform.
    I personally believe that microsoft should be broken down into 
an OS only company and that applications such as Windows Media 
Player and Internet Explorer (or Netscape) should be add ons. To let 
them make us believe that an Operating system without these is not a 
complete operating system is wrong. Many people were browsing and 
enjoying the web in full multi-media contents and 3D Before 
Microsoft claimed it to be impossible unless MSIE was part of 
Windows.
    If we allow Microsoft to go on, we will soon witness the results 
of the long efforts that lead to VRML (by companies such as SGI and 
Pixar, allowing the web to be browsed in as a virtual 3 Dimensional 
World) become part of MS IE turning 3D websites into another of 
Microsoft's only experience.
    Please don't let Microsoft become the controlling force of the 
computer oriented world we live in.
    Sincerely,
    Gilles Gameiro



MTC-00013085

From: Pat Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    I'd like to comment on the proposed settlement between the DOJ 
and Microsoft Corporation.
    What I don't understand is, if Microsoft was found to be 
engaging in monopolistic practices that were against the law, how 
could there be no penalty for those actions? It seems that the 
proposed settlement would only try to keep those activities from 
happening in the future. (weakly) It makes us wonder whether 
Microsoft influence and money are tipping the scales of justice. We 
are saddened at the prospect of our judicial system possibly being 
compromised in this way.
    If Microsoft has broken the law, through the book at them.
--Pat Wilson



MTC-00013086

From: Doyle Rockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:31pm
Subject: Settlement opinion
    Dear Sirs:
    I'm sure you have many thousands of these comments to process, 
so I'll be brief.
    If the proposed DOJ settlement is approved, the US Government 
will be publicly acknowledging that a single company is more 
powerful than law or government. It means that a corporation will 
have ultimate say over its behavior and impact on us, but our 
government and laws, which we are supposed to trust, will not and 
can not protect us.
    Don't throw us to the wolves. The settlement is ineffective to 
the point of being comical. Come up with something better. Please.
    Sincerely,
    Doyle Rockwell
    621 S. Gramercy Pl. Apt. 502
    Los Angeles, CA 90005



MTC-00013087

From: Ann Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this suit against Microsoft. It's high time for us 
to get on with more important matters. The settlement seems to be 
fair enough in my opinion.
    Thank you,
    Ann Lewis



MTC-00013088

From: Ashley Tate
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why don't you just stop meddling in the business sector and 
leave Microsoft alone?
    Ashley Tate
    Alpharetta, GA



MTC-00013089

From: Tim and Karen Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My husband and I strongly feel that the pending lawsuit with 
Microsoft is having a negative effect on the stockmarket and on the 
US economy in general. We urge the Department of Justice to settle 
with Microsoft at the earliest possible moment. We use a variety of 
computer software products in our daily lives and do not believe 
that are choices or spending options have been restricted in any 
way. We see this settlement as beneficial for us and for the 
economy.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Karen and Timothy Ryan



MTC-00013090

From: Professor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not let them get in to our schools, Please! Make the Pay in 
cash they have it, better books or better networking connections to 
the schools. It would be ideal if we could net work the schools with 
high speed connection. Any thing other than there software.
    Thank you
    a Parent
    Miami, FL



MTC-00013091

From: Brian J. Kim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:45pm
Subject: Break Up Microsoft
    Hello,
    I am writing as a concerned citizen. I really think that 
Microsoft needs to be broken up into at least 2 companies. The 
company that makes the OS should absolutely not be the same company 
that sells applications. There is just too much market control if 
they are all the same company. I think innovation has been stifled, 
and consumers lose out. Not only that, but companies that make 
software applications that compete with Microsoft1s products are at 
an insurmountable disadvantage.
    Thank you.
    Brian J. Kim



MTC-00013092

From: William A Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This needs to be settled.
    Thank you



MTC-00013093

From: david randall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i'm writing to express my deep concern over the proposed 
microsoft settlement. i firmly believe that in its existing form, 
this settlement isn't a penalty, it's a total gift. they get 
indemnity against further prosecution and all it takes is the 
donation of a few used PC's and a gift of software which costs them 
next to nothing. microsoft itself couldn't fabricate a better 
scenario.
    if any other company controlled 95% of a global resource, there 
would be worldwide outcry. microsoft has been shown to have used 
illegal leverage to push windows into its current position of 
dominance. only a far-reaching and significant penalty can start to 
open up the markets which microsoft has spent millions to 
systematically close down.
    for what it's worth, i believe the best course of action is a 
substantial monetary penalty (far in excess of $1 billion) which 
must be paid directly to schools for the enhancement of their 
computer education programs. microsoft should not be allowed to 
offer any unusual discounts to encourage windows adoption. instead, 
schools should be free to purchase whatever hardware and software 
they deem appropriate. furthermore, i believe a non-partisan 
oversight committee should be created as a watchdog with court 
approved authority to investigate and remedy any actions which it 
deems are anticompetitive for a period not to exceed 5 years.
    the sherman anti-trust laws were designed to protect consumers 
from exactly the kind

[[Page 25703]]

of predatory tactics that microsoft has demonstrated over the last 
few years. already, microsoft has been elevated to the status of a 
global utility with almost total control of all informational flow 
across the planet. only a dramatic and well-conceived remedy can 
help to undo the damage.
    microsoft should not be rewarded for anti-competitive behavior. 
they have been proven guilty and they must feel the full weight of 
the law.
    thank you for listening,
    david r.
    [email protected]



MTC-00013094

From: Shirley Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:48pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Why have you spent sooo much time haggling over above subject 
when they have offered so much help to our school children. Seems 
there are many, many other things you should be spending your time 
on, such as Our Country's Safety, More % for social security(like 
government workers or at least cost of living), feeding the 
undernourished Americans & much more.
    Your fleecing of America Ex.: the railroad line in Vermont where 
Billions were wasted in case you did not hear Tom Brokaw's mews 
today. Please drop this daudling & finalize with Microsoft!
    Shirlley Adams
    7800 Mockingbird Ln. #180
    No. Richland Hills, Tx.
    76180-5508



MTC-00013095

From: Alan R. Houtzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement will be ineffective in deterring 
Microsoft from its monopolistic practices. It is apparent that 
either Microsoft is being granted a status above the law or the 
Justice Dept. is incompetent to understand that what it has done is 
nothing. Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it has no regard for 
any law or ruling that is intended to limit its predatory practices. 
The DOJ seems to have forgotten that MS has been found guilty, and 
that the task at hand is to disable the offender from continuing its 
offensive activities ? in the present and future. Any sentence must 
address all future activities by Microsoft.
    I see no other way to do this effectively except to break up the 
monopoly. The American public sees that the DOJ has no teeth. If 
this is all you are going to do, then close the DOJ1s doors, and 
save us the expense of running the ineffective Department of 
Justice.



MTC-00013096

From: Joseph T. Manning
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The very idea that Microsoft is capable of doing business in a 
competitive fashion is flawed. Microsoft came into being on the 
wings of monopolist tactics. Bill Gates was born into a wealthy 
family, and has never relied on Microsoft for a living. He bought 
the original MS-DOS operating system from acquaintances who had 
named it Q-DOS standing for Quick and Dirty Operating System. Once 
he owned it, he changed the name, and changed the help text, while 
making few if any substantive changes in the functional code of the 
operating system. He sold this quick and dirty operating system 
under the Microsoft label for one dollar a copy for several years, 
thus entrenching MS-DOS as the titan of the operating systems 
market. After enough years living through these narrow profit 
margins, he was able to bring about Microsoft Windows and began to 
raise his margins. Since then, Microsoft has continued to close out, 
buy out, bad mouth, and sabotage competitive companies to the 
absolute detriment of both consumers and the computer sector as a 
whole.
    Microsoft claimed to be a technology innovator while retaining 
legacy MS-DOS code all the way into the Windows 98 operating system, 
and arguably beyond. I fail to see how twenty year old software code 
can be called ``innovative''.
    In addition, you must be aware of the contempt Microsoft, its 
executives, and Bill Gates himself have shown toward the justice 
system, and toward consumers in their blatant disregard for previous 
legal settlements, and their tendency to buy, imitate, or steal 
products from competing companies.
    Microsoft has been bad for consumers, bad for the computer 
industry, and a bad example that nonetheless is portrayed as one 
worthy of emulation. I strongly urge you to levy the strongest 
penalties allowable under the law against Microsoft in a manner that 
does not allow for shoddy enforcement, or slippery noncompliance.
    Thank you for your time,
    Joseph T. Manning
    [email protected]
    2046 Jolon Rd.
    Bradley, CA. 93426
    (805)-472-9254



MTC-00013097

From: William Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ.
    It is time to move forward with the interest of American 
citizens first and foremost in mind, and I feel that the settlement 
is acceptable and should be instituted as soon as possible so we can 
get on with the job of re-building the economy and growing our 
businesses to provide more jobs and a broader range of jobs for the 
nations work force.
    Thank You for Your Time.
    William Cook
    Cook Consulting



MTC-00013098

From: Susan Leubert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ,
    I would prefer an open, fair market to the current stale 
Microsoft monopoly. Please do the ``right'' thing, bust the 
monopoly.
    Noel



MTC-00013099

From: John Lazzaro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    This is a public comment for the Microsoft Settlement. I believe 
the settlement is deficient, because it doesn't address the key 
impediment to competition in the Office Suite market today--the 
inability of competing programs to reliably read and write data 
files of the Office programs (.doc, .ppt, etc), because of a lack of 
complete, accurate documentation of these formats by Microsoft for 
third parties to use. I would suggest the publication of all 
software sources for all present and future versions of Microsoft 
Office and related programs, as the simplest and most reliable way 
to aid interoperability by competitive products, as well as a non-
discriminatory, royalty-free licensing of all patents related to the 
reading and writing of these file formats, and to any on-the-wire 
network protocols that transmit these formats. Anything less than 
source code is insufficient, because it is in Microsoft's best 
interest to make any documents describing the formats be incomplete, 
inaccurate, and out-of-sync with currently shipping software. Note 
this publication in no way affects the Copyright on Microsoft 
Office--it merely lets competitors have a level playing field, by 
showing exactly how to read and write these file format types.
    John Lazzaro--
    Research Specialist--
    CS Division--
    EECS--UC Berkeley
    lazzaro [at] cs [dot] berkeley [dot] edu www.cs.berkeley.edu/
lazzaro



MTC-00013100

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm uncomfortable when a major American corporation is about to 
be hog-tied or split up. Microsoft has been a major innovator in the 
software industry. The market has not been hurt by it's dominance. 
On the contrary, Microsoft's competitors are major businesses in 
their own rights. The benefits to leaving Microsoft intact and 
unrestrained are:
    1. Microsoft sets the standard in the software industry.
    2. It is constantly innovating and improving its products.
    3. Microsoft products face competition in every facet of the 
industry.
    4. Any settlement that harms Microsoft will damage it's 
employees and the industry as a whole.
    I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Blankenship
    Bill Blankenship, EA



MTC-00013101

From: Peter Dodge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:57pm

[[Page 25704]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I note with dismay the terms of the DoJ's settlement of the 
anti-trust suit against Microsoft. If Microsoft's past behavior--
flaunting the terms of the consent decree originally imposed out of 
the earlier antitrust case--is any example, this settlement is 
comparable to the receipt of a slap on the wrist for the crime of 
assault. For there can be no doubt that Microsoft has mugged 
Netscape, and in turn the public, and will be free to continue its 
exploits.
    Microsoft is a recidivist organization. Its management does not 
intend to loosen its stranglehold on the operating system market 
which gives it the leverage to ensure that competitive products do 
not see the light of day. At some point, Microsoft must be held 
accountable. its management must learn that the penalty for 
flaunting the law is certain to result in a terrible price which 
even its own swollen coffers cannot bank.
    The public commonweal is ill used by the capitulating terms of 
this wholey inadequate settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Dodge
    Cyberspace specialist
    1511 Sharon Dr.
    Silver Spring, MD 20910



MTC-00013102

From: Raposo, Luis M
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  8:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My conclusion based on what I've read concernning this case is 
that Microsoft has gone beyond business ethics and legal 
considerations in marketing their Windows based products.
    Very early in the 80's, Microsoft fashioned OEM contracts that 
essentially excluded other competitors from acquiring any business 
from the same OEM's. This created a situation where customers could 
had limited choices in selecting what the best OS would be available 
in the Markets. In turn, the OEM agreements with Microsoft, was a 
large disinsentive to the OEM to develop their own feature additions 
on top of Microsoft's own software. As a result, the public, 
corporations, and governments, had even fewer alternatives to OS 
features other than Microsoft's stated product plans.
    Parallel to the Windows OS monopolization, Microsoft had a great 
advantage in introducing applications that competed with existing 
and successful products. The advantage was both technical, monitary, 
contractual, The end result is a Windows monopoly based on a Windows 
operating syt



MTC-00013103

From: John Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has harmed me as a consumer, and continues to harm me 
every day, by their arrogant flaunting of our laws. Please break up 
the company, so that the future harm that they can do will be 
limited.



MTC-00013104

From: Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:05pm
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    To DOJ:
    All America waits for the litagation involving Microsoft to end. 
This company which has served the world so well has been punished 
enough by their competitors for their success. Settle now on the 
current terms. As a taxpayer I resent my tax dollars being spent on 
this long-standing suit. Although I live in the State of Washington 
my only connection with MSFT is using Windows software and I thank 
God for it every day.
    Priscilla Gardner
    Friday Harbor, WA



MTC-00013105

From: dgordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:08pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    A few points to add to Microsoft separating themselves for other 
hardware/software manufacturers' is:
    Microsoft wrote their own Java (programing language) to directly 
take away from Sun. Example: My fiance' is a realtor and when she 
logs onto the MLS database on our Macintosh computers, she can not 
get into this database. Because MLS's database is built with 
Microsoft's Java. Microsoft has every intention to separate itself 
from all other hardware/software manufacturers.
    While others of the computer industry are working together 
trying to make a solution with the differences in software/hardware. 
Microsoft has 97% of the market share. If Microsoft chooses to 
change a technology then the public is forced to change also. 
Business are also forced to do this because they have no other 
choice but to change, due to the fact that there are no other 
options. The opposite can also happen. If there is a new technology 
and Microsoft chooses not to support it then the new technology is 
stiffled because of Microsoft. Example: Internet Explorer is built 
into Microsofts' operating system. Therefore, 97% of the market is 
using Internet Explorer. So, if there is a better internet browser 
created it is unable to compete with Microsofts' internet browser 
since it is built into the OS and therefore free. That means a 
software manufacturer has to compete with something that is free.
    Most of the population only see computers with Microsofts' 
Windows OS. then that leads to misconceptions, which then 
strengthens Microsofts' monopoly. My belief on how to handle this 
situation is not as simple as to force Microsoft to pay out dollar 
amounts, or give to charities. Example: Friday's rejection of the 
settlement would have given them more control over the market. Apple 
is known to have a larger market in the educational institutions. 
This settlement would have taken that market share away from Apple.
    The monopoly of Microsoft is shown in the fear factor of the 
industry. When the only CEO of the industry is able to speak freely 
without fear of Microsoft pulling it's realationship from their 
business. My suggestion is that Microsoft should not be able to have 
control over the standard (due to it's control over the market).
    I think that Microsoft should be split into divisions. Which 
would be totally separate entities; one being it's software and 
hardware, the second being it's operating system.
    I say separate Internet Explorer from Windows. As of right now 
you are unable to remove Internet Explorer from it's operating 
system.
    Microsoft would be forced to make software for other operating 
systems other than Windows. Example: Linux, Macintosh, and any new 
OS's that could arise.
    Make Microsoft build up a fund so that any American company that 
wishes to switch their Windows network to a cempetitors will be able 
to draw the money out of this fund and/or give these same companies 
a tax break to encourage switching.
    Have Microsoft and all of the other industries leaders form an 
organization that vote on the direction of technology and standards. 
This would redirect the energy from trying to compete with Microsoft 
to simply competing with each others hardware/software products. It 
would also take Microsoft's absolute control over the population 
away, (commercial and residential).
    I do admit that this is not a simple cut and dry question that 
can be answered easily. The solution may not be a perfect one but it 
will not effect the population drastically. Consider it only as a 
transitional period. One needs to realize that this computer 
revolution has happened within the last 7 years. It has happened 
quickly and before anyone could really realize what was happening. 
We need to find a solution to this now and not wait any longer. We 
will all suffer if we let this go on any longer.
    The saddest part of this situation is, we don't know how bad 
something is until we have had something better. When there is only 
one entity controlling what is, how will we know what is not. . . 
    Thank you for giving me a chance to speak. Although, I will 
still ask that you take my words into consideration.
    Dave Gordon
    Kansas City, Mo.



MTC-00013106

From: Stephen Ludwig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Fine them at least half of their cash reserves! A two by four 
between the eyes is the only thing they'll understand.
    Stephen M. Ludwig
    [email protected]



MTC-00013107

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:13pm
Subject: Get over It!!!
    Let the market take care of it self. You complain about all the 
job losses at Enron, but you hurt the investors at Microsoft. Get 
over it!!!

[[Page 25705]]



MTC-00013108

From: Jean Kupferer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Kupferer
2025 Bono Road
New Albany, IN 47150-4609
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was appalled to recently learn that the settlement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft is being even further delayed. 
After three years of negotiations, it seems ridiculous to not 
support the terms of this well thought out agreement. At this point 
in time, the negotiations have been so well monitored that it is 
foolish to place them under any further scrutiny.
    Microsoft has agreed to rework marketing and licensing terms as 
well as to redesign versions of Windows that will better accommodate 
non-Microsoft software. All of this will be accomplished while being 
overseen by a committee to make sure that they follow proper 
procedure. The concessions that Microsoft has made are truly in the 
interest of the IT sector and in the interest of our economy. As we 
sit idly by and wait for the settlement to take hold, we are 
slipping in this highly competitive global market.
    We need to support our economy by helping to support our 
technology industry. By reopening the litigation process, we slow 
down our advancement in the industry and subsequently, affect our 
economy. It is odd that our recession and the Microsoft litigation 
seem to be tied so closely together. Maybe our major companies feel 
that they too will be blackmailed for being successful. This case is 
a waste of tax dollars, it seems that the major thing that Microsoft 
did was not contribute enough to the major parties. Since the 
litigation the prices of all software has risen and the consumer has 
been lost in the paperwork.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Kupferer



MTC-00013109

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I applaud the recent decision to deny Microsoft's proposed 
settlement. Aside from the fact that Microsoft needs to be held 
fully accountable for all that it's done, the settlement itself 
could have proved beneficial to Microsoft.
    I am a computer professional by trade, and in my opinion, the 
damage Microsoft has done is so widespread and pervasive as to be 
difficult to ascertain. At this point, Microsoft's sheer mass 
affords them opportunities to simply overpower competition, and buy 
their way out of other problems (and into new markets). Certainly, 
these are luxuries that any successful company should enjoy. Not, 
however, if that success is obtained through illegal acts. This has 
been a long investigation, and there are *more than enough* examples 
of Microsoft not playing fairly in this highly competitive market-- 
everything from intentionally preventing products of competitors 
from working with Windows, to essentially forcing PC makers to 
include Windows with new PCs.
    I also strongly believe that Microsoft is simply not good for 
the computer industry, or any other industry for that matter. It is 
clear that their products and services are designed chiefly to 
further entrench Microsoft into an ever expanding cross-section of 
markets. From my perspective, Microsoft's products are generally not 
the best to be had, and certainly not superior to the degree 
reflected by their market share.
    In conclusion, I fully support continued investigation into 
relevant details of the case. The thought of Microsoft growing out 
of control and absorbing all business and markets in their chosen 
industries is a very sobering one indeed, and I am quite glad that 
we have the Department of Justice tasked in part with keeping things 
legal and fair. Thank you for your time.
    Oh, and please keep a close eye on .net. I'm very worried :/
    Sincerely,
    Andre LaBranche



MTC-00013110

From: Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:15pm
Subject: MSFT Settlement (Please DENY)
    I would like to impress upon the DOJ that the most recent 
settlement offer by Microsoft is completely inadequate and only 
stands to increase their market share in the last public or private 
area that they have yet to impose their anti-competitive will.
    Thank you for your Time
    Curt



MTC-00013111

From: Bobbie Bamford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:19pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please, Please get off Microsoft's back and settle without 
further litigation. The American public is very fed up with the way 
our leaders are ``squandering'' our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. 
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ``THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY'' AND MICROSOFT IS 
MERELY EXERCISING THAT RIGHT.
    Really think you have more important issues to spend your time 
on like: Trying to make this nation a fair and non-terrorist place 
to try and live.
    Bobbie Bamford



MTC-00013112

From: Smith, Torney
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/16/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Torney Smith
303 W Viewmont Lane
Spokane, WA 99224
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am in favor of the Microsoft antitrust case settlement. 
Protracted litigation is never in anyone's best interest. In this 
case in particular, the effects of the suit are far reaching. As the 
regional administrator for Spokane County's public health system, we 
are certainly reliant on the innovative products continually 
produced by Microsoft. Additionally, the high cost of litigation 
always seems to be borne by the consumer. Finalizing this lawsuit is 
certainly advantageous to everyone.
    From all that I have read it appears to me that the settlement 
agreement is fair. In the interest of resolving this case, Microsoft 
has agreed to very broad restrictions. Some of these restrictions 
cover business practices that the Court did not even find to be 
unlawful. I believe that it is appropriate for Microsoft to deal 
fairly in the marketplace, and I believe that they have. Anti trust 
laws applied in the technology industry need special consideration 
and interpretation to define fairness. In an effort to make it 
easier for the competition to compete with Microsoft's products, 
Microsoft will be making disclosures of Windows internal interfaces 
to the competition. They have also agreed to design Windows so that 
it is easier to remove features of the program and replace it with 
non-Windows software. In light of these sweeping affirmative 
obligations imposed on Microsoft, there really is no reason this 
agreement should not be approved. I appreciate your review of these 
comments, as well as your efforts to work toward a settlement in 
this case.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Torney Smith



MTC-00013113

From: Rigel, Linda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    I am just a citizen, not affiliated with any company with an 
interest in the Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I am a medical 
transcriptionist for a hospital diagnostic department.
    I want to urge the Court to impose sanctions designed to break 
Microsoft's power in the marketplace that derives from its monopoly. 
In all that I've read about this case, no one has mentioned the 
following: Before the big build up in internet applications and the 
technology advancements of the late 1990s, ``innovation'' in that 
marketplace had been all but murdered by Microsoft. I remember 
reading articles about the fact that companies could get no 
investment capital if the product they were designing could in any 
way be made by Microsoft.
    Do you remember ``vaporware''? When a company Microsoft 
perceived as a competitor announced a new product, Microsoft would 
announce that they, too, were bringing out a product just like that. 
Investment money for the competition would dry up. Oddly enough, in 
many cases, Microsoft never did

[[Page 25706]]

make the product: hence the name vaporware. The first question a 
venture capitalist would ask a candidate for its money was: Is 
Microsoft doing this?
    When the Justice Department initiated its anti-trust action 
against Microsoft, that is when the great innovative explosion of 
the late 1990s began. It would be a terrible thing to let go this 
vicious thing that has been, if not subdued, at least put on a leash 
these past few years.
    Linda Rigel



MTC-00013114

From: RBray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have always felt that the Justice Department was trying 
Microsoft on the wrong charges. They should be tried for wrong doing 
the people who pay good money for software that in most cases is 
strewn with ``BUGS'' , and have the nerve to charge for an update. 
No tech support unless you are willing to pay for it. Microsoft has 
been in the business of developing software, particularly operatring 
systems for many years. You would think they could get it right for 
a change without having some high school drop out find flaws in it. 
I for one am tired of their promises that are never kept, and 
software that has to be fixed with third party utilities.



MTC-00013115

From: Gerald Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Advise you settle the Microsoft litigation inasmuch as an ugly 
trauma pervades our dear Country. Enough already. This matter is 
trivial compared to War and Terror. Our hearts are sick. As of 9/11, 
closure on the Microsoft dispute became overdue.
    Libby and Jerry Meyer
    San Jose, CA



MTC-00013116

From: John Kneeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settling with Microsoft is a dreadful mistake. Windows simply 
gives Microsoft too much power to wield over the software (and now, 
hardware, video game, TV set-top box, and Internet) industries. 
Microsoft recently took advantage of their Office suite monopoly and 
raised licensing fees for their Office suite. And American 
businesses had no other choice but to pay Microsoft's ransom, 
because Microsoft was pretty much the only game in town. Please, 
separate Windows from Microsoft before they ``integrate'' any more 
poorly-designed software. The American economy needs competition, 
and only the United States government can save it now.
    John Kneeland



MTC-00013117

From: Bill Richart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Case
January 15, 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
    2445 Sheridan Street
    Williamsport, Pennsylvania 17701
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00013118

From: Rudolph Hensley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Bush Administration and Microsoft in their desire 
to settle the long, lingering lawsuit.
    Sincerely,
    Rudolph Hensley



MTC-00013119

From: Jeremiah Blatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the Microsoft settlement, on the grounds that 
it would be ineffective in preventing Microsoft's continued abuse of 
its monopoly. The proposed remedy in no more than a slap on the 
wrist. I am a Macintosh user, and I actually like Microsoft's Mac 
products. Many of them are the best products available for what they 
do. However, I cannot say the same for their PC products. None of 
Microsoft's PC products are nearly as good as their mac equivalents, 
and the Microsoft Windows operating system is consistently horrible. 
Furthermore, the PC products are full heavy-handed anti-competitive 
features that interfere with the usability of the products. Yet many 
of my co-workers are forced to use Microsoft Windows and Office due 
to network effects.
    The moral of this story is clear. Microsoft can produce good 
software, but only if they are forced to compete, and prevented from 
colluding. The only way to do this is to break up the company into 
an operating system company and an applications company. 
Furthermore, as a remedial measure, Microsoft must be forced to 
document its file formats and data structures, in order to avoid the 
sort of practices that they used to kill WordPerfect.
    This will force Microsoft to spend their money developing good 
software, not buying potential competitors, strong-arming suppliers, 
and drowning out potential competitors with waves of advertising.
    Thank you,
    Jeremiah Blatz



MTC-00013120

From: Todd Ramsell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    I1d like to add to the public comment about the Microsoft 
settlement. I believe Microsoft is an aggressive monopolist and the 
DOJ needs to pursue strong action to open up more competition in 
operating systems and software.
    Some solutions I suggest all or in part:
    1. Separating Microsoft into Operating systems and Software. 
This makes the most sense although I imagine this would be hard to 
implement in a settlement.
    2. Require Microsoft to create it1s entire line of software (MS 
Word, Excel, etc) with feature parity and compatibility on Mac OS X 
and Linux. This would increase and nurture use of Mac and Linux 
systems which are the only practical alternative to MS.
    3. Force MS to sell off or license it1s operating system source 
code to third parties to compete against MS.
    4. Require MS to fund a foundation similar to the one suggested 
by Steve Jobs that would give poor schools the funding to buy Apple, 
Linux or MS products. Microsoft1s original proposal was ridiculous 
and would have gave them an advantage in education, one area where 
they don1t have a monopoly.
    Thank you,
    Todd Ramsell
    214.826.8294
    PO Box 720028
    Dallas, TX 75372
    [email protected]
    http://www.polypop.com/ramsell/design



MTC-00013121

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I wish the government will get off the back of Bill Gates. ever 
since the government got involved with its litigation against 
microsoft, the stock market took a dive and the economy is going to 
hell .Please end your harassement of microsof



MTC-00013122

From: JSB
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I never cared that MSFT had a monopoly, but I hated their 
prices. MSFT has $20 bil in cash. Fine them big.



MTC-00013123

From: Chris Calvert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long time observer of the computer industry here are my 
thoughts. Microsoft is

[[Page 25707]]

a monopoly. They got this way by buying or intimidating their 
competition. Apparently they have contributed enough money to 
politicians to get themselves out of their current problem with the 
DOJ. They have lied to the courts about not being able to remove 
Internet Explorer from Windows and dragged their feet and hired 
enough lawyers that they will prevail, but justice will not have 
been done, just perverted.
    Meanwhile it is business as usual with Microsoft, taking away 
the open music standard of MP3 and substituting their proprietary 
Window Media Player format is a perfect example of their predatory 
practices. Yes, a person can add the MP3 player to Windows, but in 
my considerable experience, less than 10% will and just like 
Netscape, MP3 will disappear much like Netscape and one more 
``standard'' will be owned by Microsoft. For that matter, why is 
Microsoft bundling this software in Windows in the first place? It 
is a separate application, or will we later learn that Windows Media 
Player cannot be removed from Windows because it is now necessary to 
the operating system? Deja vu all over again.
    And who at DOJ allowed Microsoft to recommend their own 
punishment?!!!!! Wow, I want that judge if I ever get in trouble. 
The punishment would be for them to give away their product for 
free, with government sanction to a market niche currently dominated 
by their competition. This is absolutely insane. The companies most 
hurt by their monopolistic practices get slammed with the judges 
blessing, and then do not get compensated for it. What would I do? 
Make Microsoft pay all the other computer vendors compensation for 
loss of sales. Yep, it would be billions, but we might see Unix and 
Linix and Apple have a small chance to create something innovative, 
more secure and better for our computers than Microsofts current 
offerings.
    Chris Calvert
    2727 San Joaquin SE
    Albuquerque, NM 87106
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    --Benjamin Franklin



MTC-00013124

From: Robert Storey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a US citizen and knowledgeable computer user, I would like to 
excercise my right to comment during the Tunney Act review period on 
the proposed settlement that the US Justice Department has offered 
to Microsoft . To put it simply, the DoJ settlement is little more 
than a shameful sellout that will do nothing to restrain Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices. I fully support the States that are 
continuing the court case in the hopes of attaining a far more 
strict settlement. The proposal that Microsoft make amends by 
``donating'' software to schools will actually extend Microsoft's 
monopoly into the educational system. I strongly support the 
suggestion by Red Hat that Microsoft should donate hardware with no 
OS installed, and allow Red Hat (and other OS vendors) to donate the 
operating system free so that students are exposed to more than just 
the Windows OS.
    To mention another specific remedy I would like to see: 
Microsoft should be forced to open all their APIs so that 
programmers working with other operating systems can ensure that 
there products will work in a network which contains Windows OS 
computers. The APIs for Microsoft Office should be similarly opened. 
Microsoft's attempt to hijack standards and hide them behind closed 
APIs should no longer be tolerated.
    sincerely yours,
    Robert Storey



MTC-00013125

From: Kundan Ewan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my support for the following judgement 
in the Microsoft Monopoly case. That is that Microsoft's APIs and 
file formats be fully standardized, documented and published. This 
would enable other software vendors to compete fairly benefit all 
concerned.
    Thank you,
    James Ewan
    1221 Sylvia Ct
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    93401



MTC-00013126

From: richarddkline
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to accept the Microsoft settlement proposal as being 
in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. Don't let 
this suit continue and destroy one of the premier companies in this 
counrty. Microsoft has competed fairly and contributed to the growth 
of this country by creating technology we all enjoy, not to mention 
jobs.
    Richard D. Kline



MTC-00013127

From: Abe Jellinek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please keep fighting the good fight! If I killed someone, I 
couldn't run around stabbing more people as a ``convicted 
murderer.'' Why, then, can Microsoft keep making illegal business 
deals (see the SGI patents that were ransomed today) as a 
``convicted monopolist''?
    Abe J



MTC-00013128

From: S.D. McMinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    This should have never been brought against Microsoft in the 
first place.
    Thanks
    Stanley McMinn



MTC-00013129

From: Mert Urness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American consumer I wish to state that the original 
remedies found against Microsoft are full and sufficient and nothing 
furthur should proceed on the matter.
    That surely would include the current suits being brought by the 
nine states!
    Yours truly,
    Merton L. Urness



MTC-00013130

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:48pm
Subject: Public comment on Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Who continues to throw coals on the Justice Department's Anti- 
Trust Suit? Microsoft's two major competitors. . . not the general 
public! The public, in whose interest the Justice Department orig-
inally sought redress, has not been wronged. . . rather they have 
been helped. The investing public has suffered enough: with the 
decrease in Microsoft's share price and the subsequest fall of the 
market! Let it go. . . stop torturing this creative giant because it 
is so successful. Move on. . . in the interest of the public!
    Barry Faquhar,
    113 Skyline Drive,
    Morristown, NJ 07960



MTC-00013131

From: tosh382
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hey ``My-USGovernment Justice System'' . . .  Please don't mess 
things up for us Microsoft Users . . .  you'll find that Microsoft 
has made our lives easier (please open your mind to the daily use 
factor) . . .  breaking Microsoft up into individual companies will 
have the opposite effect on the Public than what you think. Remember 
back when you broke up Standard Oil or AT&T . . .  same result . . . 
 don't let that happen again !!!
    If you want to slap them around for strong arming their vendors 
. . .  be my guest . . .  they do deserve that !!! . . .  If . . .  
that is a fact ??!! . . .  Don't listen to those other Politicans . 
. .  Fight for Us !!
    If you want an ear full . . .  just call me . . .  but don't 
mess up my life again by tearing down another Company !!! . . .  and 
Again . . .  learn from the past mistakes . . . 
    ``We the People'' are tired of bad decision making!! TRUST ME 
!!! . . .  Listen to Us . . .  Please !!!
    Very Satisified Microsoft User . . .  and God Bless Our America 
!!!
    Craig B. McIntosh
    763-494-9996 H
    763-572-7002 W



MTC-00013132

From: Denis H(00E9)raud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:54pm

[[Page 25708]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's face it, this must be stopped here and now. The proposed 
``donation'' settlement is a complete joke and I can't believe they 
are daring enough to propose it in the first place. They are 
actually trying to gain from their supposed punishment. This high 
rise circus is growing tiresome. The company should get more than a 
simple slap on the wrist, which is all they've gotten so far. It 
seems more and more like digital terrorism and outright mutiny of 
the economy. Let's start thinking about ethics a little more.
    Sincerely,
    Denis Hiraud



MTC-00013133

From: Administrator
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:54pm
Subject: Notification: You are hereby. . . . .
    Notification:
    You are hereby challenged to see What the Media doen't want you 
to know. The Truth about Abortion with your own eyes. at http://
www.getabortion.info What you will never see on TV. Its not a blob 
of tissue. Every scientist , even those for abortion, will tell you 
that life begins at conception. Once the egg and sperm join there is 
human life.
    Why won't the media show you this? They show open heart surgery, 
liver transplants and other operations on tv and cable. Why not an 
abortion?
    You can watch real videos online from former abortion doctors 
who have performed up to 75000 abortions, hear what they have to say 
about abortion. Did you know that abortion is perfectly legal 
through all nine months of pregnancy, including the day of birth? 
Did you know that in most states a child under the age of 16 can get 
an abortion without their parents knowing? Anyone can plainly see 
that we are killing our own.
    On September 11th 5000 people were killed. Abortion in the US 
alone kills over 4000 children per day that's an average of one 
innocent unborn human murdered every 22 seconds! An entire genertion 
has been slaughtered. Overpopulation is a myth, back room abortions 
are a falsehood propagated by the money mongers of the industry.
    See it for yourself.
    http://getabortion.info



MTC-00013134

From: Kevin Losso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the MIS person at a mid-size firm I deal with the residue of 
Microsoft's illegal monopoly power on a daily basis. Sub-standard 
products, worthless ``upgrades'', and shoddy security bear with them 
a high cost; MS's illegal monopoly limits my options and my firm's 
options. Do not let them off without a strong and enforceable 
remedy-- you will only have to deal with them again in the future.
    Kevin Losso



MTC-00013135

From: A.J. Kirby Co.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I feel very helpless in a situation like this because my say 
would seem to count for so little yet I want to submit a coment even 
if it is just to say ``Please bring competition to the market 
Microsoft has such a stranglehold on now.''
    Sincerely,
    Richard Cooley



MTC-00013136

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:01pm
Subject: This proposed settlement is a disgraceful sellout
    I want you to think for a minute about the PC you are probably 
using to read this very email. Think about all the components in 
it-- sound card, graphics card, disk drive, memory, motherboard, 
CPUs, monitor, printer. Not a single one of those is produced by a 
monopoly. Even the CPU; odds are it comes from Intel, and even if 
so, Intel is not nearly the monopoly Microsoft is. Most of the 
apologists for Microsoft jabber on about how the Operating System 
has to be controlled by a single company, standards, etc etc etc. 
Why does not that same logic apply to the hardware itself? You'd 
think there would be far more reason for monopolies there, both 
legal and practical. Yet no one worries even a bit about who makes 
the monitor or graphics card, or puzzles about the mystery of how 
they work together.
    So why have you disemboweled yourself for Microsoft? The Unix 
world should be proof enough that no single OS is necessary. Add in 
Apple. Add in the fact that Microsoft OSes are far more fragmented 
than any random collection of Unix OSes.
    There are tons of horror stories about Microsoft stomping out 
competition. The few examples you brought out in the trial barely 
touch the surface. There are tons of stories of Microsoft barely 
staying within the law, and many times stepping far outside it. Did 
you not learn a thing from the famously fraudulent video they lied 
about under oath, led about from one end of their empire to the 
other? Have you not learned anything about Bill Gates' business 
ethics from the previous many court appearances and settlements? And 
now this crock of settlement has a toothless, indeed gumless, 
oversight committee. Are you so naive to expect any changes at all 
out of Microsoft?
    Good gosh! They have $36 billion in cash, increasing $1.5 
billion per month. They are stomping on game consoles, they are 
stomping on cable TV, they are stomping on handhelds, they are 
stomping on anybody and everybody and their dog. And the best you 
can come up with is a disgraceful sellout. It amazes me that you can 
sign your name to this garbage and not hide your face in public.
    Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / 
[email protected]



MTC-00013137

From: Daccus Productions
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:01pm
Subject: I hope that all states agree to settle the Microsoft issue. 
I can't believe
    I hope that all states agree to settle the Microsoft issue. I 
can't believe that a judge would keep them from giving computers to 
our schools so in need of educational tools. Wouldn't it be too 
tragic for our children and us to reap the benefits immediately 
rather than wait for years of legislative hocus pocus, ``Oops! we 
spent the money on committees studying the matter. Sorry there just 
isn't enough to spread around to the masses now.'' Hopefully our 
elected officials will soon become more accountable to the needs of 
the people instead of the needs of the greedy in commerce. We need 
Microsoft's help with far more important security issues and 
inventions of the future. Let's move on elected people.
    J. D.



MTC-00013138

From: Eric Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a systems administrator. Currently, as of two months ago, I 
contract for the State Department. Before that, I worked for several 
web development shops, helping to create websites for the Internet, 
off and on for the past five years.
    DO NOT LET MICROSOFT OFF THAT EASY! Give me a break. They not 
only get out of actually paying anything in the settlement, but they 
actually insinuate their products into the next generation's psyche. 
And then come out looking like great, beneficent doers of good by 
``donating'' all of this free software. So instead of being 
penalized for crushing companies and inhibiting competition in the 
marketplace, they are rewarded by gaining a new generation of 
software buyers. Please don't let this happen.
    Eric Dunn
    6121 Kendra Way
    Centreville, VA 20121



MTC-00013139

From: Dan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:04pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    I think you should at least consider actually reducing 
Microsoft's ability to be a monopoly. As they have a history of 
breaking their promises, maybe you should, for example, force the 
company to actually use industry standards, so that other companies 
can compete. Force them to reveal their APIs. Yes, it means they 
give up some small part of their intellectual property. But, they 
are a criminal monopoly, some form of punishment is a good idea.



MTC-00013140

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:04pm
Subject: (no subject)
    Dept.of Justice, I feel that at this time when the economy is so 
bad that any decision to restrict a company from expanding and 
creating new jobs would not be in the interest of our economy. It 
also could make other companies think twice about expanding. I feel 
that Microsoft has made a reasonable

[[Page 25709]]

offer and should be accepted by all parties involved.
    Raymond Malapero



MTC-00013141

From: Amin Pirzadeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:06pm
Subject: Comment on microsoft final judgement
To: the judges in charge of United States v. Microsoft Settlement
    In my personal opinion The proposed final judgment fails to
    (1) Remedy software developers who's jobs have been lost due to 
the Microsoft monopoly.
    (2) fails a good enforcement.
    (3) Fails to remedy java developers community.
    To all the people who are in the field of Computer Science, it's 
clear that Java is the Leader in tomorrow's programming languages 
and
    The way software will be written. However Microsoft's strategy 
has been to push it's own senseless Active X and .net technology and 
suppress the Java technology.
    (4) To completely compensate consumers who have paid allot of 
money to upgrade their software (because of the bugs in the 
Microsoft's previous systems).
    In my opinion the only judgment that would make sence in this 
case is to make microsoft to reveal it's code so other companies can 
make compatible Windows operating system.
    Amin Pirzadeh
    University Of British Columbia
    CANADA



MTC-00013142

From: David Jansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my concern that the penalties assessed 
against Microsoft in the recent antitrust proceedings will not be 
strict enough. Any settlement that sees Microsoft unfairly 
increasing it's market share as ``pennance'' is NOT acceptable to 
me.
    It is my opinion that the only way to keep Microsoft from 
unfairly ``lording'' its considerable market share is to break the 
company into at least two companies; preferably three.
    1. A distinct and separate Operating System company
    2. A distinct and separate Applications company
    3. a distinct and separate Hardware company Separating the 
company this way would encourage competition across the board.
    Under this plan, Microsoft would not be able to ``lord'' one 
division's technologies over it's competitors. A perfect example is 
that of Apple Computer's new operating system, OS X 10.1. Under the 
current Microsoft structure, Apple is not able to port its operating 
system to an Intel/AMD platform for fear of Microsoft retaliating 
(eg. stopping development of Microsoft Office when so doing could 
potentially put Apple Computer out of business.)
    With each individual ``Microsoft'' company seeking its own 
profits, the applications division would be looking to expand it's 
marketshare by developing software for OTHER operating systems such 
as Linux and Unix (and any of the individual flavors of each).
    The same thoughts apply to the OS division and the hardware 
division. Microsoft's subdivisions should not be allowed MORE access 
to the technology behind the operating system/applications/hardware 
than any other development partner.
    Microsoft's recent settlement proposal was a slap in the face to 
everybody who has ever achieved something by dint of hard work and 
innovation. The 300lb gorilla should NOT be allowed to sit wherever 
it wants.
    Thank you for your time,
    David Jansen
    San Jose, CA



MTC-00013143

From: Adrian Rossi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam,
    As an IT professional, and having for many years worked in this 
field, I am sincerely concerned about Microsoft's monopoly position. 
It should be obvious at the outset that I have no doubt whatsoever 
that by the definition of a monopoly Microsoft is indeed an very 
ruthless and insidious one. My concerns are many but focus mainly on 
what will happen to the field of IT as a whole if MS is allowed to 
continue to squash competitors and enter (like a cancer) more an 
more software markets, in which it offers little innovation.
    My first objection is an everyday one; why is it that if I buy a 
PC it comes installed with MS operating systems *even if I do not 
wish it* ? The fact is that a part of the purchase price goes to MS 
and I have had absolutely no choice inthe matter. You could argue I 
could buy a PC without the OS separately; but the price of such a PC 
is guaranteed to be much higher. It is more affordable (by a few 
hundred dollars at least) to purchase a PC with MS OS pre-installed 
and then to wipe the drive and re-install another non-MS OS (e.g. 
Linux). I believe that if I as a consumer am required to buy a 
product which I do not want and give money to a company I do not 
want to then that company is a monopoly, as only a monopoly has such 
an ability to coerce hardware vendors into such an arrangement.
    Secondly, I see an ever-increasing and very sinister, replacing 
of other vendors' software applications with Microsoft equivalents 
(case in point Real Player with Windows Media Player). This bias is 
bad enough but I believe it is more sinister than this- I have 
repeatedly and on many occasions had problems running non-MS 
software on MS operating systems. Performance is compromised or it 
simply crashes. But I never experience this with MS apps on MS 
systems.
    There could be many reasons for this of course, but the fact 
remains that *any* vendor should be able to write software which 
works as well on MS OSes as Microsofts does. This is the essence of 
the solution to this dispute; force MS to open its OS not for 
copying of course becuase it is their intellectual property, but so 
that other software vendors can write reliable software on top of 
it, and hence compete with MS on their own operating systems. This 
is a step in the right direction, but only the first step.
    I have heard countless stories from colleagues and company 
executives about the hand-cuffs put on them by MS. They know that 
they must go with the standard, and the standard OS is Windows. But 
then they find that they must also use MS software--why!?-- in order 
to ensure that it works well on Windows. This is wrong! There should 
be no link between the software and the OS it executes on. But there 
is and this is the way MS is able to sell software which is clearly 
of inferior quality, or lacking in innovation, and the way that 
vendors with better products are shut-out of the market by this 
monopoly. Once again if software manufacturers could produce MS-like 
software which can run well on MS OSes then this might give others a 
chance. Of course it doesnt stop MS from 'upgrading' the OS from 
under them, and these companies are then forced to play catch up and 
support this new system (e.g. Windows XP). A company I know of could 
not afford to support XP, as it involves a considerable amount of 
effort and testing, especially after they have supported Win9x, NT 
and 2000. So this tactic effectively pulls the rug out fromunder 
software vendors and there is nothing they can do about it. This is 
another monopolistic tool at the disposal of MS.
    Finally, I have seen many times the case where MS decides 
unilaterally to raise license fees on their OS or products. And the 
fact is that comapnies MUST pay up. There is no choice because they 
can not do without MW Word or MS Powerpoint or any of the other 
standard applications used through out the world. How do you stop 
this? The only way I can see is to allow vendors to build 
equiavalents which can produce documents in these formats (e.g. Word 
format). Sun tried this with StarOffice but there were niggly 
differences between the formats and they were not able to completely 
match the Word formatting, so documents produced in MS Word did not 
look or behave the same within StarOffice,and vice-versa. Unless the 
behaviour is exectly the same it is useless to migrate away from MS 
software. Another monopolistic tactic and MS uses it well to fill 
their coffers with more unearned dollars. In conclusion I urge you 
to consider the ramifications of *not* bringing the MS monopoly to 
an end.The speed of the IT industry is such that within a few years 
left unchecked Microsoft will have total control over the industry, 
and not even Sun Microsystems will be able to stem the tide. If this 
happens my career and that of many other IT professionals will no 
longer be viable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Adrian Rossi
    Ph.D., MBCS, C.Eng.
    Senior Software Designer & Developer



MTC-00013144

From: Dennis Sosnoski

[[Page 25710]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  9:20pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a remarkably bad deal 
for the consumers and businesses of America. It fails to address 
many of the current abusive practices, takes absolutely no action to 
prevent new types of abusive practices in the future, and is likely 
to be ineffective even for the practices the drafters of the 
settlement intended to cover.
    Microsoft has never accepted that it has violated the laws, 
despite any number of court decisions against it. There is 
absolutely no reason to believe that this will change if the 
proposed settlement is accepted. It is far more likely that 
Microsoft will treat this as yet another meaningless piece of paper 
that placates the government, just as they did the last settlement.
    The proposed settlement is far too full of loopholes and 
possible/plausible misinterpretations to serve any useful purpose 
with this type of hostile defendant. If anything, the settlement 
would give them a legal basis for further abusive practices in the 
future (such as withholding API information in the name of 
``security'').
    As someone who has worked inside the company I've witnessed the 
abusive practices firsthand. It will take far stronger measures than 
those currently proposed to correct these practices.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis M. Sosnoski
    President
    Sosnoski Software Solutions, Inc.
    14618 NE 80th Pl.
    Redmond, WA 98052



MTC-00013145

From: Kevin Driscoll (Yahoo)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm sending this personally-written, non cut-and-paste message 
as my personal input on the Microsoft settlement.
    It is imperative that Microsoft be held accountable for their 
ruthless monopolizing and their grinding of many decent software 
companies into dust by abuse of their monopoly power. Fines, even 
extravagant ones, will do nothing for a company with such an 
enormous daily cashflow.
    One appropriate remedy is to force MS to publicly and promptly 
release all their APIs and their file formats so that competitors in 
the application software business can compete on equal ground. This 
would probably require some oversight entity to enforce, with jail 
time for executives for any noncompliance. Altho they'll probably 
cry about giving up some of the intellectual property, well, losing 
something is appropriate for a repeat offender and federally-
declared monopolist.
    During my 22 years in Silicon Valley I've worked for Borland and 
Netscape and dealt directly with MS on some of these API issues, and 
their unwillingness to release full APIs in a timely manner has 
absolutely hurt market acceptance of competing products. Both 
companies were nearly driven out of business by this and other 
abusive MS tactics. Many good products died. Many good people lost 
their jobs. Many investors lost money. Consumers lost innovation and 
speed, and gained feature creep, product bloat, and performance 
degradation.
    Please do not slap them on the wrist again with consent decree-
type solutions, or big fines they can pay out of petty cash. Much 
more important than punishing them for past criminal behavior is to 
PREVENT THEM FROM CONTINUING to do it. Forcing them to always 
publish ALL Windows APIs and file formats, especially the hidden 
APIs they use to break competitors products--is one fair solution 
that you need to examine.
    I'm a senior software product/project manager, and this is my 
professional and personal opinion. Thank you for providing the 
opportunity for me to provide this input. America is a great 
country--let's keep it that way and stop the monopolies.
    best regards,
    Kevin Driscoll, Scotts Valley, California



MTC-00013146

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:23pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This has gone on WAY to long. The settlement is fair. SETTLE 
this case now and let us all get on with more important things in 
life. Don't drag this out any longer.



MTC-00013147

From: ray shook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I sincerely believe that it is time for our justice system to 
consider the many, many consumers that benefit from the technology 
developed for Industry by Microsoft. To continue to allow lawyers to 
pursue their ``legal extortion'' is going beyond the average 
business man's comprehension. As a small business owner, I believe 
that the present condition of the stock market (and the present 
recession) is due entirely to our legal system which lets 
competitors such as Netscape use the laws of our country (and 
taxpayers money) to support their failing competitive positions. It 
was this particular government lawsuit that initiated the recession. 
The ENRON failure doesn't compare to losses incurred in the stock 
market by millions of our citizens, since the attack on Microsoft.
    Microsoft has advanced the rate of progress in the US beyond 
imagination these past fifteen years. As individuals, and as a 
nation we have all benefited! Why not expect the nine States 
opposing Microsoft's settlement with the Justice Department to 
accept witout compensation, so we can all devote our energies to 
expand and develop these new technologies for a better future for 
all? Let the market place decide.
    Raymond Shook



MTC-00013148

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:37pm
Subject: please leave Microsoft alone.
    They have done more good than any company please leave Microsoft 
alone. They have done more good than any company I have ever heard 
of.



MTC-00013149

From: Simon Rebullida
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Even though I am a windows-PC user, I hoped that Microsoft would 
have been slit into different companies so that more competition 
would have taken place, to my and other's advantage. Since this did 
not happen, I believe that the government would at the very least 
teach Microsoft a lesson. Please do not allow MS to cheat the 
government, industry, and the people. They are proud, dishonest, and 
unrepentant. They think and act as if they are POWERFUL and above 
the law. At the very least, do not allow them to dictate the terms 
of settlement--``$1 Billion'' worth of PC's and software which they 
will dictate, is not really ``1 Billion dollars'', and will hit 
Apple in the education market (a real irony!).
    Please prove to MS that it is the government exercising justice 
with and for the people that will prevail.
    Simon Rebullida
    1717 Euclid Ave. #11
    Berkeley, CA
    94709
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013150

From: Adrian Malarbi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:43pm
Subject: Re: MacNN: The Macintosh News Network
    Ban M$ from being able to have their OS pre-installed on new 
pc's. Judge, back in the early days of computing we had choices, we 
had, Apple, Amiga, Atari ST, Amstrad etc, M$ then ripped off 
Macintosh and found a loop hole to sell its OS thus using illegal 
tactics to control the clone pc market.
    Lets get back to the stage when we had more than 3 choices for 
an OS, face it judge M$ having had 8 years of pc to itself hasn't 
really advanced, they just wait for the little guy to innovate and 
take the risk, if they succeed then M$ rips off their idea and makes 
it hard for anyone to install that original application.
    This is harmfull to competition and one day will be the computer 
industries downfall.
    Be the Judge that made computing fair again!
    It was smart that u listened to Steve Jobs about the education 
market. Adrian.



MTC-00013151

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please vote for settlement of the microsoft suit. This will 
benefit the consumer more than further litigation.
    ethel gardner
    175 e 74 st.
    new york,ny.



MTC-00013152

From: Shawn O'Laughlin

[[Page 25711]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies & Gentlemen:
    I would like to know when Microsoft is going to actually be 
punished for its predatory, coercive, and monopolistic practices. 
Microsoft has already been found ``guilty'' by the government on two 
occasions, given a hand-slap, and then it immediately returned to 
business as usual after promising to mend it1s ways. I think that 
very large fines (hundreds of millions of dollars) AND breaking up 
the company are the only sensible remedies. A complete split between 
the OS and Applications arms of the company is the only way to have 
a chance of stopping Microsoft from stifling competition and 
foisting over-priced, buggy software on consumers. Please. . . do 
your job and make the computer business a truly level and 
competitive playing field. Thank you.
    Shawn O'Laughlin
    830 12th Street North
    Breckenridge, MN 56520
    [email protected]



MTC-00013153

From: BARB HILDEBRANDT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 15, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the 
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged 
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill 
Gates' company does nothing to neither rectify past sins by this 
company nor protect against future gauging. As you know, at least 
ten consumer groups disagree with your agreement to settle. 
Microsoft has little incentive to change any of its practices. Their 
concessions of handing over some operating systems code and offering 
manufacturers some sovereignty over Media Player amounts to little 
more than a light slap on the wrists for a multi-billion dollar 
company.
    I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the 
other eight state attorneys general see the many loopholes and 
problems with enforcement that does little to affect change in the 
computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three 
companies may not be the proper response, but neither is this.
    Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please 
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Ben Hildebrandt
    2607 SW Emma
    Des Moines, Iowa 50321
    CC: Iowa Attorney General



MTC-00013154

From: JOSEPH MANLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  10:57pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I urge the courts to settle the Microsoft case as quickly as 
possible. Continuing litigation can on damage the American economy. 
I believe the settlement being proposed is a reasonable solution to 
this case. It is time for all the parties to act like adults and 
quit trying to garner votes or further their careers.



MTC-00013155

From: coolfr3ak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern; Microsoft has severe power problems. 
They want to standardise the whole world, with the Microsoft 
Standard. This includes the way you listen to your music, the way 
you check your email, the way people play games. In an ecosystem, 
where no diversity exists, it is common knowledge that the ecosystem 
will fail because of the limited tolerance of that system. Any 
introduction of diversity will strengthen the ecosystem, but to the 
detriment of the previous conformity.
    Thus, diversities such as linux, opengl, macos all strengthen 
the world economic system but loosen Microsofts control on its 
abilities to make illegal monopololistic money. But with the illegal 
money Microsoft has made it can afford to crush all diversities and 
maintain a non-diverse system, where they can change the system with 
out opposition to generate as much money as they require to crush 
the next diversity that tries to enter their 'pond'.
    Microsoft is consumer. It is consuming your rights. My rights. 
It will crush everything until soon all you can buy is Microsoft 
Ferarri and Microsoft Eggs and Microsoft Government. It needs to be 
stopped. It needs to be stripped of its illegal money. If not--do 
you think that wood you use to build your house will be from a non-
microsoft mill? And you might think that I am being abserd. Crazy. 
You probably think I am mad. But, while Microsoft has the power, and 
while there is a profit to be made, Microsoft will extend its reach 
to whatever it deems as profitable, be it web servers, operating 
systems, and crushing diversity. You know how Microsoft needs to be 
delt with. They need to be stripped of their ability to maintain a 
monopoly. As soon as you allow diversity into the system, and deny 
Microsoft of the ability to crush this diversity, and force the 
system to create open standards of exchange and communication, the 
system will grow and expand more than it ever could have without 
diversity.
    Your current settlement does do this to a certain extent, but 
not fully, as is required. Microsoft needs to be crushed as it has 
crushed others. Microsoft should be forced to pay compensation to 
companies such as Netscape that allow these companies to become 
fully competitive with Microsoft products.
    And this is only one step that is required to restore partially 
the current state of the system if Microsoft did not engage in 
illegal and monopolistic behaviour. I hope that you have the 
strength to create a final settlement that changes the world for the 
better.



MTC-00013156

From: Ian R. Colle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am terribly disappointed by the Microsoft proposed settlement. 
I believe that it is very clear that Microsoft engaged in 
monopolistic and predatory behavior. It's punishment should be 
nothing less than being split up. Look at what the split up of AT&T 
did for the telecom industry! Unfettered by its monopolistic 
practices that industry flourished throughout the next two decades. 
The same could happen to the computing industry should the DOJ have 
the courage to act appropriately.
    Thank you for your time in this matter,
    Ian R. Colle
    401 Holland Lane #809
    Alexandria, VA 22314



MTC-00013157

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:07pm
Subject: give back to the community
    for every license sold, give 5$ to the state of Israel. promote 
emigrating the palistinians to europe, especially germany give every 
american child who enters sixrh grade a home computer, with a 
different language software translate the old testament to chinese 
develop an IM message system, and give aol a run for their money or 
invest in aol and close down CNN. give every american 18 yo, hs 
graduate year old a two week trip to the holy land.



MTC-00013158

From: Gary Piland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Be advised that unless and until you stop Microsoft's 
monopolistic behavior, America's software industry will tragically 
follow our automotive industry into mediocrity and decline. It's not 
too late to change this settlement to limit Microsoft's aggressive 
and predatory tactics. You must break the Operating Systems business 
apart from their Applications business before no other software 
company remains--and there are few enough now--to compete.
    Monopolies are bad for competition and bad for America. The 
American public will be watching and remembering your actions very 
closely.
    Thank you for your time,
    Gary Piland

[[Page 25712]]



MTC-00013159

From: npswent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Conclude this case as has been agreed. You are wasting taxpayer 
money, and continuing to hurt the economy. Let's get on with 
business as normal, and let technology continue to grow to benefit 
the consumer as it has in the past.
    Norm Swent
    Bellevue, WA



MTC-00013160

From: cadet
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let this impudent company bully others in the 
computer industry. They should be fined, and the cash should be 
available to impoverished schools to make whatever purchases they 
feel is needed.
    Thank You.
    Christian Manasse.



MTC-00013161

From: Richard Zegarra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should have to give a monetary penalty to 
underprivileged schools. This may be cash or it may be competitor's 
computers or products. It should not be their own products. 
Otherwise, this would be ``forcing'' them to enlarge their market 
share at the expense of their small competitors. I thought the whole 
point of the initial legal action was to open up the market place to 
fair competition and halt or decrease Microsoft's predatory ways. 
This unfortunately will probably do nothing to actually hurt their 
de facto monopoly as they have approximately $36 billion in cash and 
short term securities.
    Richard Zegarra.



MTC-00013162

From: Dan Lozer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:22pm
Subject: settlement comments
    On this issue I'm a plain John Doe. I know neither software nor 
the monopoly laws well enough to comment on the technical merits. 
Nor do I begrudge Bill Gates & Co. their money.
    I will only relate what I have observed as an amatuer web user:
    1. my e-mail accounts via msn are often spammed and other ads 
for stuff I don't want end up on my computer. (Right now the bottom 
of the screen tells me that the world's largest casino ad will flash 
upon my sign out. Don't want, don't need, resent.) My Yahoo account 
stays clean, and it doesn't leave anything behind after I sign out 
of it.
    2. As user of church-donation computers, I am now on my second 
PC (if that's the word) and my first Mac. All are noncurrent 
versions. The Mac is superior for my needs, but is threatened by low 
market share. It is legitimate to say that Windows 95 is what Mac 
did earlier.
    Limited information. I don't begrudge Microsoft the money, but 
there is a need to boost its competition.
    Dan Lozer
    Elk Point, SD 57025
    605-356-3067



MTC-00013163

From: Joe Cabrera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The fairest resolution would be:
    1. Donate $1 billion in cash for schools, to be earmarked for 
equipment and software in direct competition to Microsoft (Mac OS, 
Linux, UNIX)
    2. All older Microsoft operating systems from Windows 95 up 
should be fully supported by them for at least 5 more years.
    3. They should not be permitted to buy any other companies for 5 
years.
    4. They must make their proprietary formats for all their Office 
products (Word, Excel, Powerpoint) fully open so that other 
companies may make competing products for less.
    5. Any and all contracts Microsoft has made with other companies 
which involve ``exclusivity'' in Microsoft's favor should be null 
and void, with Microsoft's end still intact if it involves them 
making any kind of payment.
    Thank you for your time--I have the utmost confidence that you 
will take the fairest action.
    Joe Cabrera
    [email protected]



MTC-00013164

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have two brief suggestion as to what the settlement with 
Microsoft should accomplish.
    (1) Microsoft should not be allowed to strengthen themselves 
through the settlement by offering a package of Microsoft products 
as part of the settlement. Specifically, they should be forbidden to 
give Microsoft Office and the Windows operating system to the 
country's poorest educational institutions. Instead, they should 
either provide cash directly or buy competing software and hardware 
for the schools.
    (2) Microsoft should be open their operating system's source to 
an independent third-party containing operating software engineers 
from various competing software companies who swear to an oath of 
secrecy. This allows, on one hand, the protection of the 
intellectual right of Microsoft while, on the other hand, the 
independent third-party can force Microsoft to truly open up their 
API and can divulge to the public any APIs that Microsoft tries to 
hide from their competitors.
    Regards,
    Bernard Yen



MTC-00013165

From: Jedidiah I. Sorokin-Altmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I am greatly distressed with some of the proposed settlement 
ideas that I have heard in the media.
    Microsoft has broken every anti-trust law and FLAUNTED doing so. 
When they were asked to remove Internet Explorer from Windows 95, 
they acted like a three-year-old throwing a tantrum-claiming that 
they couldn't remove Internet Explorer without making things stop 
working. That's like telling a kid that he can't have chocolate 
before dinner and having the kid go on a hunger strike.
    What is necessary is a method that will allow software vendors 
to fairly compete with Microsoft. Now something like this won't be 
easyMicrosoft is a behemoth. One that has no qualms about running 
things (and people) over to get its own way. What, then, can be 
done?
    Microsoft's file formats and application programing interface 
(API) must be documented, published, and standardized. The plan 
which the judge recently rejected would not do this, rather, 
Microsoft would have essentially have been left alone to continue 
business as usual for it. That is not the way.
    Microsoft has violated the law, and it the duty of the 
government to stop it.
    Sincerely,
    Jedidiah Sorokin-Altmann
    Dartmouth College Class of 2005



MTC-00013166

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:38pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft should be prevented from monopolizing the computing 
industry with their inferior software. If it was not for the IBM 
name that was attached to PCs, Microsoft would have not had the 
public following they acquired. They have connived their way into a 
dictatorial position in the industry. Steps need to be taken to give 
innovative new companies rewards for doing things better.
    Using MS products wastes more productive time than needed. Users 
spend too much time trying to produce work on very poorly designed 
software products that are totally non-intuitive. Support staff 
spend far too much time fixing and working around problems that 
should have been fixed by now.
    Companies spend far too much money upgrading software too what 
MS dictates then never using 80% of the functionality. The economy 
will be better off when better products are developed and marketed 
without being swallowed or beat down by MS marketing.
    Tom McIntosh



MTC-00013168

From: Justice Gustine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:48pm
Subject: Re: We need YOU to make your comments on Microsoft
    ``Donald Steiny'' [email protected]> wrote:

[[Page 25713]]

    Microsoft has successfully argued that consumers love them 
because there has been no public complaints. If you have comments on 
the proposed remedies please let the DOJ know by Jan 28. You are 
sending your comments to the US Department of Justice. Email: 
[email protected], type ``Microsoft settlement'' in the 
subject line. You may fax as well: 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937
    Please send this info off to others. It will help us have more 
choices in the future.
    Don Steiny



MTC-00013169

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Drop your suit and let this company pursue its business 
interests in peace.
    Robert Bell
    Clarksville, TN
    (w) 270-798-2099
    (h) 931-647-9606



MTC-00013170

From: Michael Krist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is the second time I have written to my government 
regarding this case. I do not support further action against 
Microsoft. I feel that the company has never harmed me as a consumer 
and that the unbalanced business practices of MS have been addressed 
in the current settlement.
    I believe further action against MS will only harm the consumer 
and our economy. spend your time and energy going after ``real'' bad 
guys.
    Michael Krist



MTC-00013171

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Despite obnoxious marketing tactics, Microsoft is no monopoly 
and any open-minded person can see it.
    Like it or not, Bill Gates and Microsoft, in looking to make 
themselves ever wealthier, have done more good for the country and 
humanity than all the government officials that ever lived. If the 
settlement suits Microsoft, it suits me.
    Scott E. Davison
    Burkburnett, TX
    [email protected]



MTC-00013172

From: Sue Sanford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    In the matter of the Microsoft settlement, I am submitting my 
comments for consideration. I strongly advocate for acceptance of 
the proposed settlement agreement by all parties involved. The 
provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all 
parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of Appeals 
ruling. I believe that the settlement of this case is important for 
the American economy and that drawing this case out any further will 
do nothing to support consumers or our country and in fact may cause 
additional damage. I urge the acceptance of this settlement by the 
DOJ and all states involved in the litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Sue Sanford



MTC-00013173

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2318 S 147th Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68144
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I support bringing the Microsoft antitrust case to a conclusion. 
Accordingly, I submit the following comments for your review.
    The terms of the settlement agreement are more than fair. 
Microsoft will be making it much easier for its competitors to 
compete. For example, Microsoft will design future versions of 
Windows with mechanisms to make it easier for consumers to install 
non-Microsoft software on their computers.
    Microsoft has also agreed to not to take action against computer 
manufacturers who promote non-Microsoft software, and has agreed not 
to enforce rights it may have to go after those who infringe on 
Microsoft's intellectual property rights.
    These types of concessions exceed what should be expected of 
Microsoft. Please see to it that this settlement is approved in an 
expedient manner.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Fred Pane



MTC-00013174

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough already!!! It is ridiculous the amount of tax dollars 
being spent on this case, as well as the legal costs to Microsoft, 
which will eventually be borne by the consumer. Instead of the 
benefits from all the innovations we have experienced through the 
years at affordable prices, Microsoft has been forced to spend 
millions of dollars that could have been used for further 
innovations in addition to the time taken away from the business of 
new & better developments.
    Stop this mindless litigation once & for all!! Reasonable 
settlements have been offered. What is wrong with our judiciary that 
they can't force a reasonable settlement. As usual, taxpayers & 
consumers will bear the brunt of all this in the end.
    Morton L. Efron
    5246 Hohman Ave.
    Hammond, Indiana 46320



MTC-00013175

From: hopkins70
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:06am
Subject: microsoft Settlement
149 Hopkins Street
Reading, Massachusetts 01867
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take this opportunity to give my opinion on the 
settlement recently reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. I feel the settlement is a good development at this point 
and will be good for the millions of consumers around the country 
who use Microsoft products. The comprehensive agreement requires 
significant adjustments in Microsoft's business practices going 
forward. As an example, Microsoft has agreed that if a third party's 
exercise of any options provided for by the settlement would 
infringe any Microsoft intellectual property right, Microsoft will 
provide the third party with a license to the necessary intellectual 
property on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. And to assure 
compliance with the terms of the agreement, Microsoft agreed to the 
formation of a Technical Committee that will monitor Microsoft's 
actions Truly, there are no winners if this litigation continues. 
But getting this settlement finalized will allow Microsoft to focus 
on new variations of the products that have been very good for many 
years. Also, the government can focus their resources on more urgent 
matters.
    P.S. I trust your judgement in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Ann Moberger



MTC-00013176

From: Jonathan Michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:10am
Subject: Slap on the hand!
    Microsoft should not be let off easily because
    1. They violated business ethics repeatedly with their unfair 
practices.
    2. Their just dessert should be the break up of the company into 
separate divisions.
    3. Giving free software will not do as it only helps them get 
more clients rather than disciplining them.
    4. Microsoft is all about control and no one can control them 
unless the US govt steps in and does it.
    Jonathan Michael
    32514 Oriole Crescent,
    Abbotsford , BC
    V2T 4E2, Canada
    Hm. Tel: (604)-852-9447
    Wk Tel: (604)-852-4746
    Wk. Fax:(604)-852-0333
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00013177

From: Sue Sanford at Edvita Corporation
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to add my comments for consideration in the matter 
of the Microsoft settlement. I believe that the settlement of this 
case is important for the American economy and that drawing this 
case out any

[[Page 25714]]

further will do nothing to support consumers or our country and in 
fact may cause additional damage. I strongly advocate for acceptance 
of the proposed settlement agreement by all parties involved. The 
provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to all 
parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals 
ruling. I urge the acceptance of this settlement by the DOJ and all 
states involved in the litigation.
    Respectfully,
    Sue Sanford



MTC-00013178

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:17am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This case was stupid from the outset. It serves no public policy 
purpose that I have ever been able to determine and its managed to 
wreck the tech industry. Please walk away now.
    Jeffrey Collins
    Stillwater, Oklahoma



MTC-00013179

From: Eric Blair
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that this settlement is an utter sham. 
As a result of Microsoft's monopoly, the quality of their products 
do not matter. They either bundle the product with Windows or claim 
that potential competitor's products might not work with Windows. 
The states that rejected the proposed settlement have the correct 
idea--Microsoft should not get away with simply a slap on the wrist.
    Eric Blair



MTC-00013180

From: conrad quagliaroli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:26am
Subject: Justice Dept should stop hindering microsoft.
    TO: WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    I believe the anti-business atmosphere at the justice department 
during the Clinton years should end.
    Sincerely,
    conrad Quagliaroli,
    Woodstock, GA 30189



MTC-00013181

From: Jim Gigliotti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Whatever settlement is reached between the government and 
Microsoft, it should definitely not include any agreement allowing 
Microsoft to provide products or services to schools or other 
organizations as was alluded to in numerous press releases. That 
would be a reward, not a punishment. Any fines or charges levied 
against them should be structured in such a way that the company 
does not profit from the levy. The fact that they would be so 
arrogant as to suggest that ``donating'' software as a remedy to 
their crime, serves to demonstrate further that they still do not 
comprehend the reason that they are where they are in the first 
place. I feel that it is very dangerous to allow them to walk away 
from this proceeding without subjecting them to regulations or 
controls which will significantly limit their capability to 
overwhelm the competition simply by virtue of their enormous wealth 
and proprietary stranglehold.
    Thank you,
    Jim Gigliotti
    720 Bushkill ST
    Easton, PA 18042



MTC-00013182

From: Richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft adversely effected computer technology innovation, 
value and access throughout the market. Here lies the focus of a 
suitable settlement--to remedy the damage they have done over the 
last decade. Remedies to reverse Microsoft's tendency in the 
marketplace of squashing competitors by customer manipulation and 
designing OS's with code not completely available to competing 
software designers is a good place to start. Thus, FULL disclosure 
of their OS code will help reverse their abuses in the past.
    Damages should also be rewarded to companies Microsoft has hurt 
and, in light of the many small companies they have destroyed, an 
independently administered grant fund should be established to 
promote innovation in small upstart software/hardware computer 
companies.
    Richard Pate



MTC-00013183

From: Khai Lu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:30am
Subject: microsoft Antitrust
    I am a 5th year UCLA student and i believe the best solution to 
this case is for Microsoft to donate the amount in damages to an 
independent charity. Microsoft should have no power or influence, 
direct or indirect, on how that money is used. Rather, the 
independent charity will take care in distributing that money to 
schools that need it. The money, of course, should be used on 
technology, with no special pricing for microsoft products or its 
partners. This will allow Microsoft and it's competition to fairly 
bid for the technology to provide to schools.
    Khai Lu



MTC-00013184

From: Abdulla Kamar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe microsoft's purchase of patents from sgi and there 
creation of c# as a retaliation to java are tactics used to extend 
their monopoly, the former used to pressure hardware vendors into 
supporting there direct3d api instead of opengl, and the latter as 
to stop programmers from migrating to other platforms not supported 
by microsoft.



MTC-00013185

From: Fernando Silva
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:37am
Subject: Microsoft Censures
    I've been following tech news and the tech community for the 
last five years. It doesn't take a professional law degree to see 
what Microsoft has been doing, and where they're going next. The 
computer industry is set to merge with communications, home 
appliances. health, life, and everyday living. And the justice 
department is about to slap the hands of the most influential, if 
not all controlling power of this relm in his world.
    Now is the time to act while we still have the political where-
with-all to manage such retribution. If the US government, the power 
that was able to land a man on the moon without the aid of ``all 
mighty'' Microsoft folds now, there is no telling what forces will 
control the destiny of our world. One thing for certain, it will not 
be the free will of its people--not that it's been that 'til now, 
but it is still a dream.
    Please do not let the American tax payers down. Big Business may 
pull the strings, but we pay your salaries.
    An interested voter,
    Fernando C. Silva



MTC-00013186

From: Bev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a great fan of Microsoft and think the computer world would 
be in chaos without windows. I hope that you will soon settle things 
in a fair way and let microsoft get busy making even better products 
for me to enjoy. I have never bought from another company that has 
provided me with a better product.
    They all seem to have many more problems than microsoft. So let 
us get on with quality and stop the petty stuff.
    THanks
    Beverly Evans Messer
    124 Union Street
    Belfast, Maine 04915



MTC-00013187

From: Charlie Olsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider my following comments and opinions on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement:
    It is way past time to end this ridiculous politically motivated 
attack on Microsoft. It has needlessly cost small investors like 
myself tens of thousands of dollars and has cost the loss of tens of 
thousands of jobs in the high tech industry. This case was brought 
by inferior competitors who cannot compete by producing a better 
product. Let the free market system and not the politically 
motivated courts be the judge.
    I feel the proposed settlement is more than adequate. If 
Microsoft is willing to have the cost of this settlement extorted 
from them by courts to get this case behind them, then it is time to 
do it.
    The case should actually be totally dropped and all costs of 
defending itself against this should be reimbursed to Microsoft. 
These wasted costs should be recouped from companies like AOL Time

[[Page 25715]]

Warner, Novel, WordPerfect, Oracle, Sun Microsystems and other 
competitors who thought they could illegitimately enrich themselves 
by attacking Microsoft through the political process. The costs 
should also be recouped from states like Utah who allowed themselves 
to be used and abused by companies like Novell that reside in their 
state
    Thank you,
    Charles Olsen
    4624 West Oberlin Place
    Denver, Colorado
    [email protected]



MTC-00013188

From: Daniel Downey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs:
    I endorse the current proposal by the presiding judge: Microsoft 
pays a cash settlement of a billion dollars, which is distributed 
among public educational institutions. Needy public elementary, 
middle, and high schools are suitable.
    In keeping with the antimonopolistic philosophy of the judge, 
the schools would be free to purchase computers and software that 
are in alignment with their current or planned Information 
Technology business plan, not Microsoft's. This might be Intel / 
Windows products, or it might be Apple Macintosh products; the 
choice is up to the schools.
    Microsoft's proposal of distribution of software and used 
computers simply allows them yet another inroad toward a new 
monopoly in the education market. What's worse is that donated aging 
computers will carry a hidden extra expense of maintenance and 
upgrades (Microsoft's, of course), which school districts are often 
ill-equipped to support.
    Finally, placing a retail dollar value on a Windows CD-ROM and 
calling it a dollar-equivalent contribution to an intended punitive 
settlement is wrong. Microsoft can stamp out millions of their 
product discs for negligible extra expense. Microsoft has already 
been paid for the development costs of their product. The value of 
that CD-ROM is measured in cents, not dollars. Make them pay in cash 
please!
    In a perfect world, Microsoft would also be compelled to publish 
and standardize the entire set of APIs (application programming 
interfaces) for the whole Windows OS family (95,98, NT, ME, XP), 
thus levelling the playing field for competing programmers.
    Thank you
    Dan Downey, MD
    [email protected]



MTC-00013189

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:52am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The suit should never have been begun, and at this point any 
settlement is a good one if only to stop the verbiage that has been 
cluttering the press these several years, and allowing everyone to 
get back to work. . . . . . .
    henrietta fankhauser,
    309 north ``L'' st,
    livermore ca



MTC-00013190

From: C Jeffery Woodbury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to provide some public input into the proposed 
antitrust settlement for Microsoft. I understand that one remedy 
currently under consideration would be to allow Microsoft to make a 
donation of computers running Microsoft Windows operating system, as 
well as a variety of Microsoft software packages, to certain 
``underprivileged'' school systems. It must be quite obvious to all 
concerned, however, that in the long run this proposal would only 
serve to benefit Microsoft greatly and more importantly, would 
augment, not hinder, their monopoly by facilitating their expansion 
into the education market! What is quite obvious is that if 
Microsoft is forced to contribute technology to needy school 
systems, that technology should not be based on Microsoft products, 
but instead on a competitor's product. Thus, either Microsoft be 
obligated to provide a CASH donation, allowing educators to CHOOSE 
their platform of choice, or they be obligated to make a donation of 
a competitor's (e.g., Apple Computer) product, NOT THEIR OWN.
    It is my hope that you will recognize the gravity of this 
proposed settlement, and afford this suggestion serious 
consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. C. Jeffery Woodbury
    Dept of Neurobiology
    University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
    3500 Terrace St.
    Pittsburgh, PA 15261



MTC-00013191

From: Chris Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Here are my brief comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement. 
PLEASE. . . let there be no slap on the wrist this time around. 
Microsoft's strangle-hold on the market does little to enhance 
computing for the consumer. I want a choice.
    Thanks goodness they were not allowed to stomp down Apple in the 
education market as well.
    I have hope that Microsoft will face justice eventually, despite 
all the money and power they have at their disposal.
    Thanks for taking time to review my comments.
    Best Regards,
    Chris Richardson
    IT Manager
    Dragon Claw Games



MTC-00013192

From: Helen H Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is extremely urgent and important for American 
consumers and the for American economy that the microsoft case be 
settled without further delay.
    Microsoft was a leader of the ``good times'' The litigation 
against Microsoft started this long recession. Please settle so that 
the economy can get rolling again.
    Sincerely,
    Helen H. Cowan



MTC-00013193

From: BURLEY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:09am
Subject: settlement vs litigation
    I am for settlement rather than further litigation. My question 
is, ``WHY should Microsoft suffer any further for building a better 
mousetrap?'' What is the restaint of trade in this case? Microsoft 
has greatly 'benefited' the consumer.



MTC-00013194

From: r(u)hodg Hodgson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ in my opinion the turnning down of the Microsoft 
offer was very wrong. Some four thousand schools would have 
binifited from there offer. Some of the schools in fact all lack the 
money to supply a lot of the equipment that they were offering. It 
is begining to sound more like a vendetta than an anti trust suit. 
This is my opinion. Thank you for your time.
    Yours;
    Robert Hodgson;



MTC-00013195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    See the economy failing. See the stock market falling. See Ford 
layng off 35,000 employees. See K-Mart about to close. See one of 
our finest and most creative companies; namely, Microsoft-- being 
brought down by a legal system abused by trial lawyers. Judge 
Jackson was unfair to Microsoft. In this country the drumbeat to 
bring down our most successful goes on and on.
    Thank you for your interest.
    Richard Stouts



MTC-00013196

From: Marilee Wick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:20am
Subject: No subject was specified.
    Microsoft should be required to provide full and complete 
disclosure on all programming interface as soon as they are created. 
This disclosure should also be maintained through the developement 
of the programming interface. Any, and I mean any, breaking of this 
policy should entail the immediate breakup of the company into two 
pieces, the OS piece, and applications piece.
    Another idea would be to require Microsoft to ``open source'' 
Windows (any version, including XP) immediately and maintain the OS 
as ``open source''. This would allow

[[Page 25716]]

competitors a fair chance to see what is coming down the road. 
Remember, Microsoft IS an OS monopoly and they use that monopoly to 
the best of their ability to further their products and hinder 
competitors. AT&T was split because of the same thing. In addition, 
all applications, such as, Internet Explorer, should be removed from 
the OS. This is software folks. If Microsoft says that it can't be 
done, they are lying. They are already using programming interfaces 
internally for these types of applications. All they need to do is 
expose those interfaces to the rest of the world. If they say this 
is impossible they are, once again, lying. All one needs to do is 
ask any TRUE software developer and they will tell you.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mark Wick



MTC-00013197

From: Ryo Sode
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I just don't like the way Microsoft carries out their business. 
. .  I really have nothing else to say, but my vote should count, 
right?
    Ryo



MTC-00013198

From: Brett Laurance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft's API and proprietary Office file formats 
publicly available. This is the only way to ensure Microsoft's 
monopoly is truly broken across both software and hardware 
platforms.



MTC-00013199

From: Michael A. Fuselier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On the Microsoft settlement, I think you should seriously 
consider raising the penalty amount from $1 billion to somewhere 
between $5 to $30 billion, and make them pay it in cash. Divide it 
up between the schools in the country, and everyone who has every 
bought a Microsoft product.
    Lets think about this for a moment. It has already been 
determined that they are a monopoly, and used predatory practices to 
get that monopoly. What is that monopoly worth? Well, its at least 
worth about $40 billion in cash, because that's about what they have 
in the bank. That doesn't even include the company's assets, and 
annual sales which are probably worth at least another $20 billion 
per year. You are not penalizing a small company, but the largest in 
the world, the settlement should be the largest in the world, by the 
same factor. Any company that can get away with the things Microsoft 
has got away with is deluding the government, and us public into 
thinking that they are going to change. I just paid $450 for 
Microsoft Office, and the only thing that came in the box was a CD, 
and a 10 page brochure.
    Not even a book. I think I deserve to get a book or two for 
$450. How am I suppose to learn the software I just spent 50% of the 
cost of my computer on? Do you know what kind of profit margin that 
is? I would venture to say at least 1000 percent. What other 
business can make that kind of profit, and still claim to have the 
consumers best interest at heart.
    Think really hard, about this decision. Ask yourself what you 
want to pay for your next productivity suite? If this penalty isn't 
stiff, you can bet they won't hesitate to jack the prices and mafia 
type business practices in the future.
    Stick it to them.
    Thanks.
    Michael Fuselier



MTC-00013200

From: Hugh A. Van Deursen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    The current settlement plan as devised by the Department of 
Justice is a sorrowful and pitiful answer to a problem of enormous 
proportions. It does absolutely nothing to rectify the illegal and 
unethical practices of a business but even encourages it to continue 
its business practices as had been done in the past. In addition, it 
can only encourage other businesses to commit similar acts of 
uncompetitive behavior since our own Department of Justice has 
implied that it is okay to treat Americans in such a manner and that 
the DOJ will turn its head to the actions committed against the 
people.
    It appears the DOJ has ignored all of the testimony and evidence 
of not only the new people who provided information for the court 
but also the past travesties of Microsoft which caused a previous 
consent decree which Microsoft only laughed at and totally ignored. 
By doing what you are doing at this point, you are playing into the 
hands of Microsoft and only proving their feeling that you will not 
go through with what needs to be done to protect the American 
public. What needs to be done is similar to what brave DOJ's have 
done in the past with companies like Standard Oil Company, the 
results of which obviously have only benefited not only our country 
but the long term benefits to the oil industry were evidenced as 
well.
    The original judge had it all correct when he found the company 
guilty of uncompetitive practices. It would seem the only mistake he 
made was to publicize some of his information outside of court. That 
hardly seems like a reason to give up. Judges are people too and 
therefor make mistakes. However, the evidence is still there. The 
testimony of many who trusted the DOJ when asked to testify on the 
government's behalf--for the people--are now being left uncared for 
by the DOJ. There can be no question that Microsoft will soon be 
prevailing their predatory practices against those who testified 
once the settlement is agreed to. After all, what would Microsoft 
have to lose? They already know that the DOJ will do nothing. 
Individuals and businesses will have absolutely no incentive to help 
the DOJ in the future because they will feel it will only help, not 
hurt, in the long term.
    Time and again, the American way of competitiveness has only 
proven the benefit of true competition. That doesn't matter whether 
it is automobiles or toilet paper. The competitive spirit to make 
things better due to the concern that another company will come out 
with a better product than you have makes us what we are. . . a 
great country. If Microsoft had some real competition they would not 
continue to put out a piece of software that still breaks so often 
and then require people to pay for the ``upgrades'' which are 
actually bug fixes that should be provided for free. Competition 
would cause them to make a better product. I am sure that is one 
reason that Apple has what is known to be a much superior operating 
system because they have a need to make a better product.
    There are several ways available to the DOJ to provide some 
means of remedy to the actions of Microsoft:
    *A breakup may not be the most practical or preferable, but the 
Standard (and other) breakups prove that will be beneficial.
    *Putting a dollar amount on what Microsoft has cost people by 
its monopolistic practices and making them place it into an 
independent fund where not-for-profit organizations and schools can 
apply for the funds to purchase applications and operating systems 
of their choice for use to benefit people might be used but it would 
need to be an amount that actually punishes the company for what it 
has done and profited by as a result and would, ultimately, provide 
more benefit for more people.
    *In addition to any of the above, requiring Microsoft to provide 
complete and entire sets of API's and file formats for Windows and 
Office (two major items pointed out in court where Microsoft has 
been found guilty) to a private entity that would be funded by 
Microsoft but be under the purview of the DOJ would seem to provide 
an opportunity for other companies to have access to the necessary 
code to provide operable systems and applications, not require daily 
watching by the DOJ, cause Microsoft to pay for the effort to remedy 
their improper actions, and provide the public with some decent 
competitive applications and systems.
    *Maybe another partial solution that would at least cause some 
grief for Microsoft, though I am not sure of the legality of this 
part, would be to assess an amount in dollars and the aforementioned 
API and file formats against Microsoft that they would be required 
to pay and give directly to Apple and Linux so that they can make 
their operating systems capable of directly reading and writing any 
and all Microsoft applications and operating systems so that users 
of those systems do not have to purchase an emulator for their 
system. If users could take any disk or application they are able to 
use in a Microsoft system and just as easily use it in a Linux or 
Apple system, that would surely help those systems to compete 
better.
    I have grown tired of paying for and having to use operating 
systems that do not work, or break often, due to the anti-
competitiveness of Microsoft. If it were not for their ability to 
copy another company's operating system, Windows would not even be 
where it is now and users would have an even lesser product. The 
Internet Explorer browser was so unusable until recently when they 
realized

[[Page 25717]]

that they had to improve it since they had not completely beaten 
Netscape but only damaged them to the point they had to be bought by 
another company. It seemed to me that the DOJ was doing an excellent 
job of proving its case in court over the last couple years and I 
had high hopes that finally something would be done to make them 
make a better product by making them accountable for the 
uncompetitive antics they inflicted upon other companies and, 
ultimately, consumers.
    When the King of England made the colonists pay excessive 
amounts for his taxes with only his choice of product, the people 
revolted and did what a good American would do, toss the rascals 
out. It is part of what allows us to be Americans, freedom of choice 
and freedom from improper business antics. We trust our government 
to protect us from aggressors. If Microsoft were a foreign company 
would they provided such leniency? Of course not because their true 
anti competitive actions would be acknowledged by the DOJ and proper 
remediation accomplished. It is time for the DOJ to help the 
American people revolt against an uncompetitive aggressor on our own 
soil and cause something that will truly take care of the situation.
    The current DOJ proposal has nothing in it that will do this. 
Please do something that will, like a good, responsible, DOJ should.
    Thank you,
    Hugh A. Van Deursen



MTC-00013201

From: Julie Nungester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    As the recent events have been made known to me my fear of 
injustice has steeply risen. The recent PFJ is bad news. Microsoft 
has taken things way too far and they are being allowed to 
monopolize the market. It is unjust to allow this process to 
continue. The long term effects will be grave if they are permitted 
to continue in this fashion. Please take these pleas into 
consideration.
    Thank you for your time.
    Julie Nungester
    3131 McClintock A103
    Los Angeles, CA 90007
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013202

From: T Paluchniak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:20am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello:
    I am writing to express my opinion regarding the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    For what it is worth I think it stinks. It seems to do little to 
keep Microsoft from using the same tactics to crush its competition. 
Look at Java for example. Java is everywhere, and developers like it 
because it works in a variety of different computing environments. 
Microsoft is fueding with Sun MicroSystems and as a result its 
recent version of Windows does not support Java. This clearly hurts 
competition. It also hurts software developers because eventually 
they are forced to use whatever Microsoft wants them to use instead 
of Java. Another problem I have with the settlement is that 
companies that have traditionally been hurt by Microsoft's tactics 
such as Apple computer are not protected by the proposed settlement. 
For example, in the past Microsoft has forced Apple to do things it 
might not want to do in order to get Microsoft to produce a version 
of Microsoft Office (even though Office was making a profit), which 
Apple needs to stay in business. One such instance was that 
Microsoft forced Apple to start carrying Microsoft Internet Explorer 
as its default browse when in the past Apple had used Netscape 
Navigator. Microsoft also tried to get Apple to not produce a 
version of its QuickTime software for Windows because Microsoft did 
not want to compete with Apple. Many years ago Microsoft forced 
Apple to give up some of the rights to its own operating system. 
This behavior is anticompetitive, and hurts everybody whether they 
know it or not, especially people such as myself, who like 
alternatives to Windows.
    As I pointed out earlier the new settlement does little to 
protect Apple. In August I believe Microsoft's agreement with Apple 
expires, and Microsoft is free to extract more blood from Apple in 
order for Apple to keep Microsoft producing Microsoft Office. This 
should not be the case. In the very least, Microsoft should be 
required to make versions of its flag ship products that are 
compatible with Window's versions of the products. This is necessary 
because then Apple could be free to compete with Microsoft in other 
areas without fear of retribution. Why is Office so important to 
Apple? Simple: most people use Office at work which is largely 
Windows based. At home if they have a Mac, or if they are starting a 
business using a Mac, people want to be able to communicate with 
their Window using peers. Office started on the Mac, keep it that 
way. If Apple goes out of business, about 25 million unhappy people 
will be forced to use Windows, a product most would probably prefer 
to do without. Also it might be fair to consider forcing Microsoft 
to produce a version of Office for Linuix.
    I also would like to see Microsoft stop being able to bundle 
features into Windows that other companies made popular and were 
charging for previously. If it is allowed to do so at least make it 
easy to remove these features from Windows so that competitors 
products can be used instead. Recently when I was installing Apple's 
QuickTime software on a Windows machine, Windows asked me are you 
sure you want to install Quicktime, it is made by Apple Computer, do 
you trust Apple computer? Software that Microsoft has no problem 
with does not ask questions like that. In my view this type of 
message was designed to make you question software that Microsoft 
did not like. Microsoft should not be able to use such tactics. 
Windows should easily accept competing software, especially if other 
companies are already offering the same product. Microsoft should 
not be able to give something away for free if another company made 
something popular and was charging for it, like in the case of 
Netscape's Navigator.
    I also would like to see a couple of other things done. First, I 
would like to see a person or a small group of people that have the 
direct power to enforce the settlement without having to go back to 
the court to do so. Doing so would keep Microsoft from resisting 
enforcing the settlement. Problems that the person or people find 
should be public. Second I would like to see Microsoft have to admit 
guilt, as it would allow for companies previously damaged by 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior to be able to more easily sue 
for damages if they so chose. If such companies were successful, 
this would allow the companies to use the money received to improve 
their own products, hopefully enhancing competition and further 
benefiting the consumer. Remember the original facts in this case 
were not under dispute. Microsoft is a monopoly and has abused its 
power to hurt competition. Letting it off the hook hurts does not 
remedy the wrongs done, and foster future competition. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Paluchniak
    ``In matters of style swim with the current. In matters of 
principle stand like a rock.''
    Thomas Jefferson



MTC-00013203

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:20am
Subject: At only 18, I could ``see'' this potential M$ problem 
erupting in 1987 at UIUC?
    I was a freshman in business at the University of Illinois at 
Urbana/Champaign in 1987 when I first ``saw'' the preferability of 
MacOS ``constricted'' by the high prices of the old-MacOS? At the 
time, every secretary at UIUC had a Macintosh on their desk, but 
they were unheard of anyplace else! In a Computer Science I had 
(C.S. 105), there was only ONE B/W Macintosh, and many Unix 
workstations. I remember talking with various stuents, C.S people 
and others, who were constantly disgressing about how Apple wouldn't 
``license'' the MacOS to anybody else? I had also just ``heard'' 
about Windoze 1.0 starting out, and I knew from the ``times'' that 
M$ would constantly upgrade windows to make it better? Sure enough, 
exactly as I was forbidding, Windoze95 came out 8 years. but who 
could I have told (of my fears) and who would have listened to an 18 
year old freshman from UIUC!
    I had suffered a rather severe car accident in January 1988, so 
I had forgotten all about this ``fear'' until Win95 actually came 
out in August 1995! And from ALL that I had still learned in 
business at UIUC, I can see exactly how M$ followed Bill Gates' C.S. 
``philosophy'' of total domination, until he was unofficially 
``fired'' from his CEO position! At the unofficial request of the 
DOJ who is evidently too ``weak'' to hold M$ accountable, since this 
M$ situation does so closely parallel the Sherman Antitrust 
``railroad bridge?''
    Jeff Strong
    [email protected]
    916/405-3010 voicemail
    217/234-2547 voicemail/apartment
    413/410-0665 fax

[[Page 25718]]



MTC-00013204

From: cranky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer in Silicon Valley. I do not find the 
proposed settlement adequate.
    I believe a stiff penalty for Microsoft is in order. If this 
means holding the case open for another couple of years, so be it.
    Microsoft, in its practice of attacking open standards and 
portability solutions (example: java) has been hampering software 
development for a number of years. In addition to this, it has been 
leveraging ownership of Windows to provide unfair advantages for 
Microsoft applications:
    1. Performance increase via internal Microsoft-only API's.
    2. Product leveraging by including them ``free'' with the 
operating system (Internet Explorer). Normally, the market would 
react to this by going to a competing OS. However, the applications 
barrier to entry (see Judge Jackson's Finding of Facts) along with 
Microsoft's control of the desktop market makes this impossible.
    Microsoft does not currently control the UNIX/Linux market, but 
those machines have very little applicability to home and non-
technical business users. In the home desktop OS market it does in 
fact have a monopoly.
    Microsoft's monopoly power hinders, not drives competition and 
innovation in the software industry. An effective remedy really 
requires a breakup of the company.
    Please withdraw your consent from the revised proposed Final 
Judgment.
    Thank you.
    Mike Gdog G



MTC-00013205

From: Baskaran Subramaniam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:23am
Subject: Microsoft settlement. . .
    Microsoft used its monopoly position in the market to kill 
competitors and thereby hurt consumers. Microsoft MUST pay penalty 
for its illegal behavior in addition to being forcefully prevented 
from using its monopoly position. The only way that this could 
happen is if the company is broken up into 3 or more pieces 
(Operating system company, internet service company, game 
development company, application software company and more). Of 
these only one of the new company should be called Microsoft.
    Thank you very much for accepting public comments regarding this 
landmark case.
    Sincerely.
    Dr. Baskaran Subramaniam
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00013206

From: Elizabeth Wrancher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Wrancher
2630 Amsden Road
Winter Park, Fl 32792-3513
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street.Please vote for the Microsoft Settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Elizabeth Wrancher



MTC-00013207

From: Carolyn Fielder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this mess as soon as possible. Microsoft provides 
many employment opportunities in the Northwest and throughout the 
country. Since when is a capitalist country against capitalism? In 
this country we reserve the right to profit from out own ideas. It 
is unfortunate that those who are not as creative must find their 
own importance by tearing down the labor of others who work harder. 
Bill Gates and his company had the forsight to patent or copyright 
their intellectual material. Let them reap the rewards of their 
labor. They don't 'keep it to themselves' but spread it throughout 
the community and the world with worthy causes. Leave them alone. 
Let those who are jealous of his success get off their butts and 
build their own empire. Settle the darned thing because we are tired 
of hearing about it!
    Carolyn Fielder



MTC-00013208

From: Kaye Pope
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kaye Pope
817 Vine St
Imperial, MO 63052
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kaye Pope



MTC-00013209

From: Ken Miller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken Miller
18 E. 28th
Hutchinson, Ks 67502
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Miller



MTC-00013210

From: Daniel Dean

[[Page 25719]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Dean
229 Paine Dr.
WinterHaven, fl 33884
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Dean



MTC-00013211

From: Bobby Powell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bobby Powell
2304 12th Ave.
Albany, Ga 31707
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bobby Powell



MTC-00013212

From: Wayne Cobb
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wayne Cobb
10120 Trail Drive
Reno, NV 89506
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 K. Cobb



MTC-00013213

From: Joanne O'Reilly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joanne O'Reilly
65 E.McDonald Road
Pinehurst, NC 28374
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 O'Reilly



MTC-00013214

From: Mark Lento
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Lento
P.O. Box 8100
Red Bank, NJ 07701-8100
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Lento

[[Page 25720]]



MTC-00013215

From: John Kraemer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Kraemer
3349 Blue Rock Rd.
Cincinnati, OH 45239
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Kraemer



MTC-00013216

From: Donna Wiss
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Wiss
7062 Red Mesa Dr.
Littleton, CO 80125
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Wiss



MTC-00013217

From: Vonnie Kenney
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vonnie Kenney
768 Hillside Ct
Plainfield, in 46168
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vonnie Kenney



MTC-00013218

From: Lesley Lind
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lesley Lind
4011 W. Azeele St.
tampa, FL 33609
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lesley Lind



MTC-00013219

From: Earl W. Traut
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Earl W. Traut
12022 Topaz St
Clermont,, FL 34711
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 W. Traut



MTC-00013220

From: WIN SMITH

[[Page 25721]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WIN SMITH
5341 GREENWICH LANE
JOPLIN, MO 64804-8250
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    WIN SMITH



MTC-00013221

From: John Troy
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Troy
POB 2240
North Babylon, NY 11773
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    JohnTroy



MTC-00013222

From: Joseph Garcia
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Garcia
163 Claywood Drive
Brentwood, ny 11717
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Garcia



MTC-00013223

From: Eddie Fry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eddie Fry
2638 Big Wheel Way
Alpine, Ca 91901
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eddie E. Fry



MTC-00013224

From: Michael Henke
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Henke
3121 N 48th St
Omaha, NE 68104
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Henke



MTC-00013225

From: Jean McKinney

[[Page 25722]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean McKinney
15103 Morning Circle
San Antonio, TX 78247-3330
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 McKinney



MTC-00013226

From: Jean Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Martin
615 Towne House Lane
Richardson, TX 75081-3531
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 L. Martin



MTC-00013227

From: Emil Schauer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emil Schauer
25622 Breckenridge Dr
Euclid, Oh 44117-1809
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Emil J Schauer



MTC-00013228

From: Kevin Jones
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Jones
3037 North Racine Ave. Suite #3
Chicago, IL 60657-4225
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 L. Jones



MTC-00013229

From: William G Henry
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William G Henry
611 Fisherman Pl
Brick, NJ 08724
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 and Delores Henry

[[Page 25723]]



MTC-00013230

From: Marilyn Payton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marilyn Payton
P.O. Box 191
Rosedale, IN 47874-0191
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn Payton



MTC-00013231

From: kenneth stokely
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
kenneth stokely
3021 del monte avenue
bay city, tx 77414
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 stokely



MTC-00013232

From: Darlene Jensen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Darlene Jensen
19165 SE Carmel Dr.
Damascus, OR 97009
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. & Mrs. R. J. Jensen



MTC-00013233

From: Jan Henshaw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Henshaw
6009 SE Heike St.
Hillsboro, OR 97123
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jan M. Henshaw



MTC-00013234

From: Glenda Wilson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenda Wilson
2525 Nantucket, #2
Houston, Tx 77057
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 25724]]

    Glenda Wilson



MTC-00013235

From: John McNaugher
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John McNaugher
9904 Belton Circle
Wexford, PA 15090
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 and Eleanor McNaugher



MTC-00013236

From: Barbara Blevins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Blevins
16101 Barbara Ct.
Grass Valley, CA 95949
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. Blevins



MTC-00013237

From: Richard Boesken
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Boesken
81 Mandolin Dr.
Lake Placid, FL 33852-6109
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 G.Boesken



MTC-00013238

From: John Heinsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Heinsen
6950 Compass Ct.
Orlando, Fl 32810-3656
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Heinsen



MTC-00013239

From: David Norden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Norden
P.O. Box 993
Warrenton, VA 20188-0993
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25725]]

    Sincerely,
    David A. Norden



MTC-00013240

From: Rudolph Hensley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rudolph Hensley
401 Club Drive
Hinesville, GA 31313-3808
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rudolph Hensley



MTC-00013241

From: Michael Corbin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Corbin
26835 Roland Tyler Road
Crisfield, MD 21817
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Corbin



MTC-00013242

From: Peter Graybash
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peter Graybash
4 Cambridge Drive
Hershey, PA 17033-2100
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. Graybash, Jr.



MTC-00013243

From: Carol Maynard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Maynard
8341 Chinaberry Rd
Vero Brach, FL 32963
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Maynard



MTC-00013244

From: Marie Arceneaux
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marie Arceneaux
3048 Hwy 308
Napoleonville,, La 70390
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers 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 25726]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marie Arceneaux



MTC-00013245

From: Cynthia Minardi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cynthia Minardi
39580 Bonaire Way
Murrieta, Ca 92563
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Lee Minardi



MTC-00013246

From: Tracey Sullivan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tracey Sullivan
1315 Vine Street
Middletown, PA 17057
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Sullivan



MTC-00013247

From: Elon Sowell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elon Sowell
P.O. Box 42
1010 Star Lake Rd.
Alturas, Fl 33820-0042
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Elon Sowell



MTC-00013248

From: David Gray
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Gray
792 Spanish Cove Drive
Melbourne, FL 32940
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Gray



MTC-00013249

From: Carolyn Taylor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carolyn Taylor
2011 Eastridge Road
Timonium, MD 21093
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and

[[Page 25727]]

technologies. Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Carolyn Taylor



MTC-00013250

From: JOHN VANDERWALKER
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN VANDERWALKER
PO BOX 1051
ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-1051
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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.E.VANDERWALKER



MTC-00013251

From: Thomas Henderson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  11:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Henderson
5108 santa anita ave.
Temple city, Ca 91780
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 henderson



MTC-00013252

From: John Downer Jr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Downer Jr
58230 Pueblo Trail
Yucca Valley, Ca 92284
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 & Grace Downer



MTC-00013253

From: Paul Crisp
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Crisp
P.O. Box 280
Rural Retreat, VA 24368
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Marilynn & Paul Crisp, Jr.



MTC-00013254

From: Donna O'Daniel
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna O'Daniel
216 West Corral Drive
Payson, AZ 85541
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25728]]

    Sincerely,
    Donna O'Daniel



MTC-00013255

From: Robert Jennings
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Jennings
22016 N. 44th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Jennings



MTC-00013256

From: Joseph F. Yates
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph F. Yates
4411 Beechland Rd
Springfield, Ky 40069
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 F. Yates



MTC-00013257

From: Mark Walker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Walker
1525 140th Avenue
Wayland, MI 49348-9556
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 E. Walker



MTC-00013258

From: Lezlie Baska
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lezlie Baska
17716 W 67th Street
Shawnee, KS 66217
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lezlie Baska



MTC-00013259

From: Yvonne Shoemaker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Yvonne Shoemaker
14723 Maugansville Road
Hagerstown, MD 21740-2421
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers 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 25729]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Yvonne B. Shoemaker



MTC-00013260

From: Thomas Servilla
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Servilla
48 Rockridge Dr., N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87122-2007
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Servilla



MTC-00013261

From: JERRY GONZALES
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  4:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JERRY GONZALES
6215 PLYMOUTH ROCK LN.
CITRUS HEIGHTS, CA 95621
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 GONZALES



MTC-00013262

From: Laura J. Ziegler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Laura J. Ziegler
5262 Margaret drive
Bonita, CA 91902-2108
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Laura J. Ziegler



MTC-00013263

From: Katherine Savastano
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Katherine Savastano
P.O. Box 2928
Lake Placid, Fl 33862-2928
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Katherine Savastano



MTC-00013264

From: David Hockenberry 11
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Hockenberry 11
240 Oak Flat Rd.
Newville, PA 17241
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers 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 25730]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David R. Hockenberry 11



MTC-00013265

From: Jimmy Keener
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  6:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jimmy Keener
1425 West 'A' Street
Kannapolis, NC 28081-9300
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. & Mrs. Jimmy Keener



MTC-00013266

From: Walter Schneider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Schneider
1603 Riverdale Ave
Sheboygan , WI 53081-8045
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Schneider



MTC-00013267

From: Walter Schneider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Schneider
1603 Riverdale Ave
Sheboygan , WI 53081-8045
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Schneider



MTC-00013268

From: Janice Schneider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  8:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janice Schneider
1603 Riverdale Ave
Sheboygan , WI 53081-8045
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Janice Schneider



MTC-00013269

From: Gregory Juster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was happy with the Microsoft proposal beeing rejected. Here's 
some settlement ideas:
    Microsoft shall not buy any intellectual properties, shares or 
merge with any company unless approved by the justice department for 
a 15 years span. Microsoft shall be split into different entities : 
OS, Softwares and Services and hardware. Microsoft should open their 
API to other OS. Microsoft shall not have exclusive deal with 
hardware companies regarding their OS and software for a 5 year 
span.
    If Microsoft is found guilty afterward of anti-competitive 
practice, Microsoft should be fine 1B$ given to a world charity 
group.
    This will give a fair options for both Microsoft, consumers and
    competitors.
    Regards,
    Gregory Juster



MTC-00013270

From: Howard D. Baird
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/16/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard D. Baird
1041 Rockwood Trl.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
January 16, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

[[Page 25731]]

    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers1 dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely, Stop wasting our tax dollars. From one of those in 
the top 50%
    who pay 95.7% of all income taxes.
    Howard D. Baird



MTC-00013272

From: Jim Barrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft continues to steal and copy other companies ideas, put 
little guys out of business by any means possible, while at the same 
time, and because of their large market share deliver mediocre 
products with no real innovation.
    Apple continues to be one of the few companies to create quality 
products, with truly innovative ideas that Microsoft simply copies 
after apple has done all the work.
    Now, Microsoft want to force the schools to use their cheap, 
expensive to maintain computers which end up costing more in 
training and repair than Macs.
    Who the Hell is Microsoft paying off to get away with their 
blatant robbery. Viruses, the Y2K nightmare, are just not an issue 
on a Mac. Can't someone see what is going on here.
    Are you just going to sit by and let them continue to get away 
with it? What does it take for you guys to wake up? Windows XP is a 
JOKE! Want to see a really modern operating system? Here you go: 
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
    Windows XP takes over your machine like a virus. It converts 
your files so that you can not go back to using them unless you use 
Microsoft products. It converts your MP3 music with Media Player so 
that they will then only play on Microsoft software.
    How about making Microsoft donate $100 million to the schools 
that they can use to purchase any computer they want. If you do 
that, they will buy what they really want. Want to see real 
innovation? Check out what Microsoft will be copying next: http://
www.apple.com/imac/
    What is it going to take for you people you see what is going 
on?
    Jim Barrow



MTC-00013273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kotelly,
    It would be a grave mistake to allow Microsoft to cut this PFJ 
deal. As a student and especially an American, a decision like this 
would not show true capitalism, as we are taught by the Constitution 
and the government in this country.
    I know you are probably readin many emails like this but I want 
to remind you of something my International Relations teacher taught 
me about the country of Angola in Africa. There are, as of right 
now, only 2 plane companies that fly into and out of Angola. One 
flies one night and the other the other night. A plane ticket to 
Angola costs, ballpark $5,000. This ridiculous mess is the result of 
non-competition--a monopoly, if you will, on the plane market in 
Angola. Not only are the prices terribly high but the public 
(whoever flies with them) has to cater to their needs (times, etc.) 
instead of a free choice of the spender. Monopolies, much like what 
Microsoft has become and will continure to become, are horrible 
testimonies to what America is about and will be the downfall of the 
economy as I leave college and try and find a job. Monopolies 
eliminate a free market and the choice of working class Americans.
    Please do not let this happen.
    Thank you.
    David Kleinknecht
    213-764-0508
    CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw, dkleinkn@yahoo.



MTC-00013274

From: Harry A Stahla
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry A Stahla
175 South 5th Ave
Brighton, Co 80601
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harry A Stahla



MTC-00013275

From: Gary & Mary Martin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary & Mary Martin
4148 Meade Lake Road
Millington, TN 38053
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 & Mary Martin



MTC-00013276

From: Loren Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Loren Thompson
101 Prairie Dr.
Minooka, Il 60447
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:

[[Page 25732]]

    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Loren J. Thompson



MTC-00013277

From: Kooros Teherani
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kooros Teherani
509 Ohio Avenue
Long Beach, CA 90814
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kooros Teherani



MTC-00013278

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 16, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a professional who relies on computers for a large amount of 
my income, I wish to express my opinion that ``slap on the wrist'' 
remedies are inappropriate in the matter of Microsoft. My general 
observations of the company while following this matter are that 
this company has come to see itself as above the law, and, as we 
move into a new phase internet oriented computing, I find this very 
threatening. In fact, I find the notion that Microsoft may be 
allowed to expand its hedgemony into the financial services area of 
the net, where all of our private information will reside, to be 
downright scary given its unethical actions during the court 
proceedings.
    Microsoft has exhibited time and time again that it will cut at 
the knees any company who does not explicitly share its vision, or 
chooses not to accept Microsoft's designated position for it in its 
grand scheme of computing. The fact that Microsoft has exhibited 
this willingness to cherry pick the best ideas for inclusion into 
Windows means that there will be less incentive for innovators to 
test commercial waters with new concepts, as they know that once 
they have proven their concept Microsoft will simple declare it a 
``feature'' of their next version of Windows.
    This viewpoint has been exhibited in Microsoft's stance vis a 
vis Java, and is currently showcased by its exclusion of Real Audio 
and Quicktime software from the standard Windows XP package to the 
benefit of its own Media Player software. Despite its pleas that 
innovation is being stifled, the record shows that Microsoft has 
never been an innovator. Microsoft has reiterated the idea of 
windows as espoused by Xerox and Apple; the browser as put forth by 
Netscape; the media player as created by Quicktime and Realplayer; 
and more. Microsoft's attempt to dilute Java into yet another 
proprietary technology is well documented in court. Although I 
recognize Microsoft's talent at integrating, many of the ideas we 
accept as common in Windows were in fact developed elsewhere. 
Perhaps in a normal business environment these actions are 
acceptable as competitive.
    However, with the courts having decided at great cost to the 
American taxpayer that Microsoft is a monopoly, it is up to you to 
devise strict and meaningful remedies to ensure that Microsoft does 
not continue to abuse those companies brave enough to compete with 
it. To do anything less is to denigrate the public trust, and 
devalue our tax dollars.
    Please resist misguided political and economic pressure and 
pressure and hand Microsoft a remedy that illustrates public resolve 
against this kind of business behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Victor C. Bernardoni
    President, horizon Music Group, Inc.
    [email protected]
    By Email



MTC-00013279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave them be. The settlement is fine. Go investigate some real 
criminals . . .  like the executives of Enron.



MTC-00013280

From: Andrew Somogyi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Somogyi
P.O. Box 912
Poulsbo, WA 98370
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Also when it is legal or ethical for competitors of Micro-soft 
to get a slush fund together to lobby the Justice Department to 
bring a monopoly suit against them?Jim Barksdale,former CEO of 
Netscape vowed to bury Bill Gates.How did it HURT consumers to get 
free software from both Micro-soft and Netscape? James Barksdale was 
hurt because he couldn't make a profit by giving away his 
product.Freebies have been given away for buying a certain brand of 
gas, going to a movie, opening a account at a certain bank, going to 
see a baseball game and much more! For most part the MONOPOLY charge 
was politically motivated by the DEMOCRATS. They received more 
donations from SILICON VALLEY that election year than years before.
    DO NOT STIFFEL honest competition, that's what made this country 
great and different from the REST of the WORLD.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25733]]

    Mr. Andrew Somogyi



MTC-00013281

From: Tim Mansour
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Dept of Justice:
    I'm appalled at Microsoft's recent attempts to settle this 
antitrust case by giving away software and hardware. What an absurd 
and transparent attempt to *increase* their stranglehold on the 
market, and thank God the judge involved didn't accept their offer.
    Microsoft is absolutely a monopoly: I feel this every day as an 
Apple Mac user. I want--and should have--the freedom to choose what 
tools I use for my work, and what appliances I buy for my lifestyle. 
The more Microsoft is allowed to invade every area of my life, the 
more I'm worried about even having any choice.
    Microsoft should pay a *substantial* amount of money into a fund 
which can be administered by a *representative* group of computer 
executives: including those with interests in Linux, Unix, Java and 
Mac OS. But, this fund should be ongoing for some time: some money 
which finds itself in Microsoft's pockets because users have no 
choice should go into helping competitors until those competitors 
are actually helped by it--in other words, until Microsoft's market 
share drops. Until then, what's the point in offering token 
gestures? If the free market economy is to survive on competition, 
then let the competition begin! I'd suggest that a certain sum (or 
certain % of gross profits) from Microsoft should go into the fund 
for the next five years.
    Tim Mansour [email protected]>



MTC-00013282

From: Dolores J Preble
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed settlement.
    Dolores Preble



MTC-00013283

From: Funky Soul Rebels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:14am
Subject: Hoping for Justice
    To Whom it May Concern,
    It is becoming rapidly apparent that our world is on the brink 
of many turning points. From terrorist threats to political and 
economic fiascoes, we are experiencing the most turbulent time in 
our nation's history. If there is any security that we Americans 
have, it's in knowing that there are competent men and women of 
integrity running the government and judicial system. Of course, 
that ideal rarely graces our reality when there are riches involved.
    The current Microsoft litigation is a prime example. It is 
obvious that the company's massive buying power has come into play 
as they shamelessly continue to utilize the surreptitious maneuvers 
that earned them the status of a full-blown monopoly in the first 
place. The company has proven time and time again that it doesn't 
give a fig about fair play and will use anything in its vast arsenal 
of unethical tactics to wipe out the very competition they stole 
their ideas from! Just listen to their proposed settlement, it 
actually gives them an opportunity to monopolize the educational 
market, an untapped resource that is currently dominated by Apple. 
What happened to our anti-trust laws? Is this American Justice? Will 
Big Money have the final say in everything?
    If answer is yes, then it isn't difficult to see what the future 
awaits this country. Just take a good look at the repetitive history 
of all empires and you will see that they all fell due to the greed 
and corruption of their leaders. We live in a time when the line 
between corporation and government is blurred. Microsoft has found 
ways to influence the highest levels of power and authority in the 
name of the almighty dollar. I am not a capitalism basher by any 
means. People should be free to get as rich as they want. I just 
don't want to see another blatant injustice funded by deep pockets. 
With more resources than any terrorist network or mafia clan, 
Microsoft is the world's richest bully and must be taught that the 
court's decision does not have a price tag. I implore you to make 
our voices heard in this matter so that we can believe in this 
country again. If justice does not prevail, it is only the beginning 
of our great nation's inevitable collapse.
    My words may sound melodramatic to some, but I firmly stand 
behind the conviction that we have shed our blood in vain if we 
struggle to defend something that is rotting from the inside out.
    Sincerely,
    Heath Davis
    252 South 4th Street
    Brooklyn, NY 11211



MTC-00013284

From: Bryce Ryness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    As a business student at the University of Southern California 
I've had a little exposure to this case and the parties involved. 
And I must say that it is unfortunately that where there's a lot of 
money there's always a lot of gray- both in terms of legal and moral 
``right''. With so much at stake a significant number of people will 
be hurt regardless of which side the decision favors. You control 
the fate of a lot of people.
    Your decision is one I do not wish on myself. However, it has 
come to my attention that you're accepting statements of opinion to 
help you decide this case. Given such an opportunity, I will give 
you my synopsis of the situation and my opinions on the final 
judgments.
    1. First and foremost, I feel that Microsoft is in violation of 
all applicable anti-trust laws. The most powerful evidence to this 
conclusion are the countless stories (and testimonies) given telling 
how Microsoft has used their size to ``bully'' smaller computer 
manufacturers into carrying their products (regardless of the wishes 
of the end-user). This kills the competitive spirit that keeps the 
United States' market economy alive and thriving.
    2. In addition, their size and market dominance has allowed them 
to control the actions, and reactions, of their customers. Simple 
economics states that one of the characteristics of a monopolistic 
company is in that company's ability to control prices within their 
market. At this current time, I've heard nothing but support for 
Microsoft's ``price-fixing'' by expert economists. Granted, their 
``fixing'' of prices for their generally-superior products is 
grossly subjective (how much does a piece of software cost, really?) 
in terms of dollars and cents, but the motivation and theory behind 
their pricing schemes shows the primary characteristics of a 
monopolistic company.
    I applaud the efforts of the Department of Justice in putting 
Microsoft under the microscope. As history reveals to us, all too 
often monopolistic companies are only challenged when they've grown 
so big and have taken the industry into such a place of inefficiency 
that it's difficult to internally justify killing such a societal 
mainstay. However, you're on the right track by nipping this in the 
bud early. It makes your job tougher because the margins are 
smaller, but cleaning up this little mess early will save billions 
of dollars in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Bryce C. Ryness
    Student, University of Southern California
    CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw, dkleinkn@yahoo.



MTC-00013285

From: Derek Kent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:00am
Subject: MS Antitrust Settlement Suggestions
    There are a few very important steps that I feel should be 
adopted in any settlement or ruling in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial.
    (1) Force open every API Microsoft owns now, and in the future 
for at least 20 years. An API is an Application Programming 
Interface. Having an open API is very commonplace and Microsoft is 
one of the few companies in the world their close most of theirs. 
Forcing open Microsoft's APIs would allow other developers to 
compete with Microsoft software on the Windows platform and create 
some competition for products like Microsoft Office which haven't 
seen competition for far too long. Equivalent products could easily 
be released for under $100, and because of how important Office has 
become for many consumers and businesses, this would be enormously 
beneficial for consumers.
    (2) Fine Microsoft heavily. One of the large reasons Microsoft 
is able to kill companies like Netscape is because it has a huge 
cash reserve that allow it to price products in ranges that 
competitors simply can't survive at. Of course Microsoft looks to 
make a profit off of the software after it has become the standard 
and has no competition. A large portion of this fine should be 
divided up among companies that produce products that compete 
directly with Microsoft and should be enforced to be used for 
research and development of those or similar products that either 
compete directly or are related to products that compete directly. A 
fine of no less than $15 billion is advisable
    (Microsoft has a cash hoard of over $30 billion). Companies that 
should receive a

[[Page 25734]]

share of this include Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat (and 
other distributors of Linux), IBM, a number of small open source 
projects such as Sourceforge.net, AOL, and The Omni Group to name a 
few. This money could also be offered to developers to be used to 
bring or continue to develop software for Operating Systems besides 
Windows, such as the Macintosh and Linux. In addition to this point, 
Microsoft should be required to continue to support and develop any 
software it currently makes for alternate Operating Systems to 
Windows for at least 6 years.
    3) A breakup of Microsoft as suggested by Judge Jackson would be 
most effective combined with the above two solutions. It would 
strongly advisable, although not entirely necessary.
    4) Obviously a number of other solutions are also needed in 
conjunction with the above, although I'll leave those up to others 
to propose. The above suggestions focus heavily on restoring 
competition as quickly and fairly as possible into the computer 
industry across a broad range of areas to best benefit consumers. 
However, obviously additional remedies are needed to ensure 
Microsoft stops (as it is still continuing to) breaking antitrust 
laws and competes fairly in the marketplace not simply for a short 
period of time. Many of Microsoft's licensing practices need to be 
examined and changed, as well as monitored in the future by a third 
party. Etc. Etc. Basically, 3 things need to be targeted:
    (1) Competition needs to be restored (points 1 and 2 that I 
make, others are also possible)
    (2) Competition needs to be ensured
    (3) and Microsoft's business practices need to be monitored for 
unfair business practices similar to the way IBM's were
    Cheers,
    Dak



MTC-00013286

From: Charles Truong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  8:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello
    There are only one good way for this settlement.
    1. Microsoft should be fine much more money than the settlement 
that they want and all the major of the money should be use to order 
all the poor schools with ONLY APPLE MACINTOSH computer running Mac 
OS and continue to supple with Apple computer and nothing else.
    2. And continue to write Microsoft Office for MAC for a long 
period of time as well as continue to update this software a same 
timeframe as windows counterparts.
    Charles Truong



MTC-00013287

From: Michael Foy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:28am
Subject: my email views
    I hope this will not be binned straight away let me first of all 
state that I am a mac owner and have had Apple computers since 1980 
and mac owner since 1984. I shan't go into all the sordid history or 
Microsoft, let's deal with the present and what to do now. Microsoft 
MUST be made an example of, they are even now continuing their 
bulling ways venturing into other (non-computer) areas as a safety 
measure so that even if judgment is hard against them they will 
survive. if you split up microsoft, it is really no solution, they 
will continue in their ways and the thought that there would be an 
open playing field is incorrect, the ``old boy network'' will 
continue to run and communication between the two companies is 
appear to be broken, but in reality, meeting ``between old friends'' 
etc will furnish them with an added advantage.
    Do not consider making microsoft donate software and computers 
to schools, this will give them a leavage on young minds and rob 
other companies of a market.
    the only sensible solution (and I don't know how you can do 
this) is to make the OS software open source, make it public 
property, nationalize it, take it away from them as a resource to 
valuable for a single company to own, make it free, rob them of 
their revenue, they can then continue to develop software, but not 
with an advantage.
    thank you for allowing me to have my say.
    Michael Foy



MTC-00013288

From: Scott Forbes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement advanced by the Department of Justice 
does nothing to remedy the effects of Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices, and given Microsoft's track record with anti-trust 
litigation holds little hope of actually preventing Microsoft from 
continuing to illegally extend its monopoly. I am disappointed by 
the DoJ's decision to propose a settlement that leaves Microsoft 
still in possession of its ill-gotten gains, and still in a position 
to destroy the public benefit gained by the existence of innovative 
and competitive companies such as Palm Computing, Apple Computer, 
Netscape Communications, Novell, Borland, Lotus and many others who 
have suffered at the hands of Microsoft's illegal activities.
    The only true remedy to Microsoft's practices is to require the 
company to publish the source code to its operating system products. 
This would immediately eliminate Microsoft's ability to illegally 
leverage its OS monopoly, and impose a financial penalty on the 
company that appropriately fits the crime. The resulting economic 
benefits and innovations that would come from having a competitive 
OS marketplace are compelling, and I urge the DoJ to consider them 
as it withdraws the proposed settlement and instead proposes one 
that is more acceptable to the public.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Forbes



MTC-00013289

From: simonmartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs,
    Please punish Microsoft in a meaningful way. The only thing they 
care about is maintaining their strangle hold on the industry. The 
only relevant punishment is therefore to either break the company up 
or regulate it *very* severely. A financial punishment is all very 
well as it will benefit some people in the very short term. In the 
long term something much more dramatic must be done. We are talking 
about a company which will stoop lower than anyone in their business 
tactics, breaks every industry standard ever set up and steals 
designs at the drop of a hat, they haven't had an original idea 
ever.
    The computer is part of our future, we need you to make sure we 
get the best one possible. This won't happen if things continue the 
way they are in the long term.
    Sincerely
    Simon Martin
    PGP KEY ID 0xFA69D420> @ http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/>
    Note new email address: [email protected]>



MTC-00013290

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attention Renata Hesse:
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
William Miller
1020 Sively Street
Hanover Township, PA 18706
[email protected]
    I purchased a new Compaq Presario mobile computer with the 
Windows XP Home Edition operating system and I purchased Microsoft 
Office Small Business Edition. When I tried to activate this 
software, I was treated unfairly by a Microsoft technician. In 
addition, I had upgraded my older Presario Desktop Compaq computer 
with Microsoft Professional Office on it. I was given a hard time by 
Microsoft that claimed I had to many copies of the software. They 
did not take into account the fact that restores are made by clients 
which must be the problem. We need to have someone to appeal their 
decisions to when they choose not to activate our equipment and 
software. Furthermore, I am not even sure that this process is 
necessary except that the software says it will run 49 times and 
shut down. This is a very frustrating and unfair business practice 
in my opinion which has not been the way Microsoft used to do 
business. Please send me a reply that you read my e-mail and 
concerns about the activation process being implemented by Microsoft 
which takes away our rights of using our software. Thank you for 
considering my concerns and let me know if you have any questions 
about the above issue.
    Warm Regards,
    William Miller

[[Page 25735]]

    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013291

From: Brennan Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has complained that the settlement proposed by the 
non-settling states is 'punitive'. This implies that the initial 
proposed settlement is *not* punitive-- that they don't see it as 
any kind of lesson, warning or punishment of or against their law-
breaking activities over the last decades. Microsoft's most recent 
activities indicate that they have no intention of changing policy 
in regard to competition. The initial proposed settlement makes 
little provision for what will happen to Microsoft if they continue 
to abuse their monopoly, making it close to worthless.
    Of course Microsoft should be punished. Microsoft are starving 
the national and international IT market of diversity and growth in 
the name of it's own proprietary `innovations'. Microsoft should be 
treated punitively. They have broken the law and ruined the 
livelihoods of thousands of innovative companies. They should be 
obliged to produce their application software, fully supported and 
uncrippled, for non-Microsoft operating systems, and they should 
allow third-party developers the same opportunities to create 
software for Windows as their own developers have, they should 
absolutely not be allowed to use their desktop monopoly to leverage 
their position in the emerging handheld device and multimedia player 
market. Brennan Young



MTC-00013292

From: Michael `Mickey' Sattler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:17am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft:
    Settlement Information Microsoft's recent licensing or purchase 
of SGI's 3-D patents makes it clear to me that this is still a 
company throwing its weight around in the never-ending goal of 
crushing any competing technologies, regardless of the impact to the 
end-user. (As an ex-GO employee and current user of OpenGL, 
Microsoft has been no friend of mine.) Please strive to place the 
most stringent and punitive remedies first. Having Microsoft get off 
by delivering more of it's poor-quality software is hardly a 
solution to the problem.



MTC-00013293

From: Marv Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not stand by a let those who are not inside the software 
``industry'' as I am blather on about how Microsoft did not take any 
steps to suppress and/or eliminate competition.
    OK, I'm a software techo-geek. I've been writing, using, and 
debugging software for 42 years. Most of those years were spent 
writing compilers, compiler building tools, and related utility 
programs like debuggers, linkers, and assemblers. In one of my 
previous jobs, we wanted to port a C compiler to the Windows 
environment. It compiled code that ran twice as fast as that 
compiled by the latest and greatest Microsoft offering. Our problem 
was that we had to take heroic measures to test our compiled code. 
Why? Microsoft will not and will not release the specifications of 
the object code that their system supports--the format that their 
linker accepts and their libraries contain.
    Other compiler teams have faced the same problem. Some with 
deeper pockets than ours reverse engineered the Microsoft object 
code formats. That worked fine until Microsoft ``improved'' the 
formats, requiring another round of reverse engineering. Eventually, 
most gave up--just as Microsoft intended. Who loses? Everyone who 
wants to create efficient programs to run in the Windows 
environment. First hand, that's not many of you, but second hand, as 
users of the programs that are available, that's most of you out 
there.
    Oh sure, there's the example of Borland, who bit the bullet and 
created their own complete closed system with its own unique set of 
file formats and libraries. One counter example with very deep 
pockets. All of the others eventually have given up chasing a 
sequence of ``new and improved'' Microsoft secret file formats. I'm 
sure that there are those in other niches of the software world who 
can tell similar stories about the Microsoft predator. Let's hear 
them!
    Then there's Windows, or is that Windoze? It is the most bug 
ridden, unstable, sophomoric, ``designed'' by trial and error, half-
baked piece of crap that masquerades as ``operating system'' that 
I've seen in my 42 years in the industry. I could go on and tell you 
what I really think! Windoze usually hangs trying to shut itself 
down. Often, a crashing program destroys system information. One 
that I see a lot is that the ESCAPE key's meaning is altered. Guess 
what the ``solution'' is. Yep, yet another reboot. This on a machine 
that has hardware to protect the data of one program from all other 
programs! The ``system'' doesn't even protect its own vital data! It 
stores vital resource use information in fixed size 65,536 byte 
buffers. Program crashes often trash even them. Normal use overfills 
them.
    As far as I'm concerned, UNIX is ``the'' operating system. OS/2 
was great (after its initial teething problems) until Microsoft cut 
IBM off from the details of Windows 95 that they needed to be able 
to run the new generation of Microsoft tools--like Word and Excel. 
Denial of information necessary to competitors. Does that sound 
familiar? I say, break up Microsoft, and make the various parts tell 
the others and all aspiring competitors the details of the file 
formats and API's. How many pieces? At least three: Windows, 
Applications, and Development Tools.
    Marv Graham
    1000 Brookwood Circle
    West Columbia, SC 29169-4004
    803-926-3432
    The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize 
they can bribe the people with their own money.--Alexis de 
Tocqueville ``To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation 
of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.'' ---
Thomas Jefferson ``Those who advocate more and more government 
regulation have been experimenting for 40 years, trying to create an 
economic system in which everyone can somehow be made more 
prosperous by the toil of someone else.'' --Ronald Reagan Ask not 
for what your country can force other people to do for you. ``Tax 
cuts do not have to justified. It's government spending that has to 
be justified.''
    Sheldon Richman, Washington Times
    Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you're 
paying for? Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a 
few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate 
it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.--Ronald Reagan (1986)
    Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. The 
philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90 
MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the 
speed limit to 20.
    --SAM COHEN
    Different Perspective On Militias
    ``We don't want to overthrow the government of the United 
States--because that has already happened. We simply want it back.''
    ``Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up 
plowing for those who kept their swords.''
--Ben Franklin
    ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
--Right-wing extremist Benjamin Franklin
    ``If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us 
out??'' --Will Rogers`` If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free 
in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will 
be . . .  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it 
is the responsibility of every American to be informed.'' Thomas 
Jefferson
    ``The big problem in the long process of dumbing down the 
schools is that you can reach a point of no return. How are parents 
who never received a decent education themselves to recognize that 
their children are not getting a decent education?''
--Thomas Sowell
    ``Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated 
to it.''
--Thomas Paine ``
    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace 
alarmed--and thus clamorous to be led to safety--by menacing it with 
an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.''
--H.L. Mencken
    ``A lie is not, strictly speaking, the opposite of the truth; a 
lie will usually contain an element of truth. Perverted words are 
situated in a twisted vision that distorts the landscape; one is 
confronted with a myopic social and political philosophy.''
--The Black Book of Communism (p. 19) Who will protect the public 
when the police violate the law?
--Ramsey Clark
    The Constitution wasn't perfect, but it was better than what we 
have now.



MTC-00013294

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25736]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:54am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    ideas on an appropriate remedy in the microsoft case: since 
microsoft has muscled out so many small software companies, an 
appropriate remedy is to require microsoft to set aside $5 billion 
to fund the emergence of 5000 new, small software companies. these 
5000 new software companies will restore vital competition to the 
software industry--which has had an 800-pound gorilla sitting on top 
of it for far too many years. software innovation by small software 
companies has been smothered and the country needs to rekindle those 
flames of innovation.
    since the damage done has been over a period of more than 10 
years, microsoft ought to fund remediation of this damage for more 
than 10 years.
--phil shapiro
    arlington, virginia



MTC-00013296

From: Terence Crocker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I believe this issue of Microsoft's recent settlement with the 
DOJ will be the most important issue that faces American life in the 
years to come. It would be difficult to communicate the differences 
that could occur if Microsoft were compelled to act in the best 
interests of American society, instead of in the narrow interests 
that their monopolistic interpretation of free enterprise has 
produced. Forcing Microsoft to release documentation that describes 
the API codes, with the exception of security
    issues that would be monitored by the U.S. Government, seems a 
necessary first-step. The second step is much more difficult and 
that is allowing Microsoft to implement this release in its own 
fashion and on its own time schedule. Why? I believe that Microsoft 
must be allowed to operate in bad faith so that further, more 
Draconian measures can be applied in the case of flagrant non-
compliance.
    The final step is the monitoring of the Microsoft Monopoly over 
the Windows Operating System and the reduction of anti-competitive 
positions on the part of Microsoft. I believe that this will be 
accomplished by non-compliance by Microsoft of the settlement once 
enacted, and a much stricter enforcement by the U.S. Government, 
following the expected transgressions. Further, while I applaud the 
efforts of the State Attorney Generals of the dissenting nine 
states, I believe their efforts do not reflect the best interests of 
America, as a whole, but reflect the various constituencies' 
interests within those states. Microsoft must be allowed to decide 
how to treat their own self-inflicted wounds. Microsoft, alone, 
needs to determine their role in future events. Further, in light of 
the events of September 11th, I believe it behooves all citizens of 
the Western World to emphasize that security is an utmost serious 
matter and that our future safety should not be left to the whims of 
an unstructured Operating System marketplace.
    My greatest fear is that Microsoft will be allowed to constrict 
the innovation in Operating Systems and drive OS development 
underground, leading to unforseen consequences when further 
unanticipated OS refinements begin to appear. I take Bill Gates, et 
al, at their words that they can be relied upon to act as 
responsible citizens and loyal Americans. In fact, I believe we have 
no choice but to make that assumption. I note with some trepidation 
that the manufacturing of significantly sophisticated electronic 
hardware falls outside the perview of the U.S. Government. And those 
devices, given an alternative approach to Operating Systems, could 
prove disasterous to the American way of life.
    Sincerly Yours,
    Terence Crocker
    Computing Scientist
    Canadian Citizen
    Age 48



MTC-00013297

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is in court as a repeat offender; the current 
antitrust suit, in which a federal district court and an appeals 
court have both affirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly and that it 
has abused its monopoly powers, arose out of the failure of a 
previous consent-decree settlement of an earlier antitrust case. At 
some point, having repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs to 
pay a price, or it will continue with its profitably anticompetitive 
ways.
    Don't let Microsoft get away with breaking the law.
    Marion Ehlers



MTC-00013298

From: NETL User
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop wasting the Department of Justice's valuable time 
and the taxpayers far more valuable money on persecuting Microsoft 
Corporation. Having the Federal Government pester anyone about 
perpetuating a monopoly is akin to having Ted Kennedy scold somebody 
for bad driving--its downright hypocritical. If pleas against 
wastefulness aren't enough to move you, then please consider the 
fact that millions of citizens have their retirement money invested 
in Microsoft, and the specter of Federal lawsuits and penalties due 
to baseless anti-trust actions by the DOJ is needlessly devaluing 
their investments.
    Robert Thompson
    Pittsburgh, PA



MTC-00013299

From: Lavon Madsen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lavon Madsen
613 E Holland
Minden, Ne 68959-2051
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lavon Madsen



MTC-00013300

From: Clayton Eller
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clayton Eller
6040 Lakeside Drive
Lutz, FL 33558
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-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 25737]]

    Sincerely,
    Clayton Eller



MTC-00013301

From: don wilkinson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
don wilkinson
6631 apache run
theodore, al 36582
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 wilkinson



MTC-00013302

From: John Sonstegard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Sonstegard
PO Box 282
Ipswich, SD 57451-0282
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 R Sonstegard



MTC-00013303

From: Ronald Abbott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Abbott
7607 13th AVE NW
Bradenton, FL 34209
anuary 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Abbott



MTC-00013304

From: Judy White
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judy White
165 Brandon Lane
Fayetteville, GA 30214
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 C. White



MTC-00013305

From: Betsey Potter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Betsey Potter
851 Saturn Street
Jupiter, FL 33477
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25738]]

    Sincerely,
    Betsey B Potter



MTC-00013306

From: William Potter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Potter
851 B Saturn St.
Jupiter, FL 33477
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Potter



MTC-00013307

From: Gary Shaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone and forget it! America needs Corporate 
America to run without government interference! We need jobs out 
here!
    Vicki Shaw
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00013308

From: $BKvB3??8g(B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and methods from SGI. 
This is ridiculous because it grants Microsoft significant leverage 
over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers who are currently 
supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, 
OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling UNIX-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    S Grill
    Naha University, Okinawa
    Director of 3D Department



MTC-00013309

From: Travis McGee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Hi Guys,
    I am a registered Republican in Boston, VP. at Fidelity 
Investments. As a tax paying and informed citizen of this country, I 
want you to leave Microsoft ``alone''. They are the hardest working 
individuals I ahve ever seen. For those of you who have not dealt 
with Microsoft ``competitor'', talk is cheap and easy.
    Microsoft is the flagship of our nation, our proud and joy and 
hell of a hope as we are facing tough economic conditions.
    You can reach me anytime at 617.650.2233
    Travis Goddard



MTC-00013310

From: WILLIAM DUNN
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This E-Mail is to convey my sentiments regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. I beleive that it is about time to end this suit. 
Dragging it out for years is counter productive. This type of action 
was taken against IBM years ago with no real solution. All that was 
accomplished was adding to the coffers of lawyers.
    [email protected]
    CC:'fin(a)mobilizationoffice.com'



MTC-00013311

From: Rick Bennett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/17  8:36am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a US citizen who is concerned with preserving the freedom of 
``choice'' among products and services in our nation, I would like 
to add my following concerns regarding the Microsoft anti-trust 
case.
    1. Microsoft, unlike auto makers, builds a proprietary car, 
using proprietary gas, and now they also want to own the road 
(internet)
    2. The only real way to have the punishment fit the crime, is if 
Microsoft is forced to open up all of it's proprietary holdings so 
that the world can have real competition.
    3. This would force them (as well as everyone else) to compete 
soley on the basis of the quality of their products. I guarantee 
that this would get their attention. The fundamental problem with 
the PC industry is that right now some very bright kids are hard at 
work inventing the next great computer idea either in hardware or 
software, but they also realize that it will never see the light of 
day because it is not Windows compatible, and Microsoft will find a 
very clever way to kill it.
    This will also ensure the fact that you and I will be stuck 
using the lowest common denominator in the computer industry which 
is Microsoft mediocrity. The fairest judgment in this case would be 
to force Microsoft to write all of their applications to run native 
on all other competing platforms for the next decade. And if they 
want to donate computers to poor school districts then they have to 
purchase competitors equipment.
    This would be fair. Microsoft illegally gained tons of market 
share, and so now they must be forced to give market share back!
    Thanks
    Rick Bennett



MTC-00013312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has by their monopolistic power over desktop operating 
systems caused real damage to not only the shape of the marketplace 
by destroying competition.
    The punitive aspects of the proposed settlement do nothing to 
remedy past infractions--and a total disregard for DOJ sanctions in 
the past--nor to correct them in the future.
    Microsoft's destruction of the competition began with the 
introduction of Windows 3.1. At that time Microsoft did not hold the 
edge in office tools or development products.
    Within 12 months of the introduction of Windows 3.1, Microsoft 
had secured the lead in not only operating systmes (they controlled 
only about 95% of the desktops at that time), but also Word 
Processing products (you can name Microsoft Word--who's number two?) 
and software development tools (an awkwardly misnamed ``Visual'' 
C++). Part of the reason for this success was brought about 
developing their products to support Windows at the same time as 
they developed Windows--which did give them an edge. The greater 
reason was their terribly slow and gradual realease of information 
about how to use and program in their operating environment, a 
licensing agreement that essentially meant that no matter who 
developed software, Microsoft would get a

[[Page 25739]]

percentage, and extensive use of hidden (``undocumented'' in 
programming parlance) features in their operating system--some of 
which were specifically designed to disable competitors' products.
    These practices have not decreased in pace or intensity.
    The DOJ's investigations have clearly uncovered Microsoft's 
bullying of computer manufacturers to not only promote Microsoft's 
products, but also to eliminate competitors.
    Microsoft has at the same time devoured most of the companies 
who at one time succeeded by providing software utilities to enhance 
the operating system. Where are the software backup companies that 
used to exist? Where are the compression and enhanced storage 
companies? Where are ALL the Windows utilties companies?
    With the revenue stream from the operating system, Microsoft has 
been able to sell products at less than a market value to destroy 
their competition as well. This has clearly been the case with 
Internet browsers. Before Microsoft entered the market place, 
browser software sold for $50.00. Now it's free--because Microsoft--
whose browse was based on federally funded software--gave theirs 
away and continues to do so (the subject of another ignored Federal 
case).
    The greatest testimony of Microsoft's crushing the competition 
is in the Office products arena. Name the number two desktop office 
suite. On the development side, Microsoft's dominance was so severe 
that they haven't had to upgrade their Visual Development Studio for 
6 years (their last major release was 1996).
    While the DOJ proposes sanctions, Microsoft has turned even them 
into victories. What about the ``punishment'' of distributing 
Microsoft free products to schools? What great marketing. Microsoft 
surely remembers, but the DOJ appears to be lacking a bit of 
historical perspective: Wasn't Apple prohibited from GIVING schools 
computers to further cement their market share in the 1980's?
    Microsoft has mocked all the DOJ's settlements and punishments 
in the past, skating past the stupidity and lazy naivete of those 
working the case. This settlement appears to be more of the same. If 
the DOJ is to do anything at all, it should make Microsoft change 
it's practices: Break it up; force them to sell off their office 
products or development tools; award damages to those affected by 
past practices; prohibit them from selling products below a 
reasonable cost; get a bit more creative than the existing proposal 
which isn't even sufficient to be considered a hand slap.



MTC-00013313

From: Jay Colson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 Java-TM 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. Always do sober what 
you said you'd do drunk.
    Jay Colson/That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.
    Fax 877.683.5042/
--Ernest Hemmingway



MTC-00013314

From: Adam C. McAlmont
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that any settlement should not allow Microsoft to pay a 
penalty by donating it's technology. I feel it is completely out of 
step with a punishment--it would only help Microsoft expand it's 
dominance in other areas.
    Any penalty should be paid in cash--an amount that would have a 
strong effect on the company. Possibly a restructuring and division 
of Microsofts assets may also be appropriate.
    However, the solution that allows Microsoft to expand into 
education where another company is strong (Apple Computer) only 
helps Microsoft, and that is not good. That is awarding the 
lawbreaker and would be outrageous.
    Thank you,
    Adam C. McAlmont
    P.O. Box 5537
    St. Augustine, FL 32085
    904-823-9682
    [email protected]



MTC-00013315

From: Jeff Gerst
To: `[email protected].'
Date: 1/17/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern--The Microsoft case needs to be dropped. 
It is important to have competition. There may be some individuals 
pushing to keep attacking Microsoft, but a large portion of attacks 
are coming from other companies that want to thwart anything that 
Microsoft does to assist their own companies.
    JG



MTC-00013316

From: Feuer, Jared
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Please make sure that any settlement reflects the need for 
Microsoft to open up their API (applications programming interface). 
This is the only true way to restore competition to software/
operating systems development.
    Best,
    Jared Feuer
    Arlington, VA



MTC-00013317

From: Bernhardt, Thomas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the whole case was a waste of my tax dollars and I am 
VERY upset . . . I am so tired of watching the US destroy the best 
and strongest companies so those that have no real product to sell 
can have a leg up at everyone's expense.
    I do not see anyone going after Ford because all they offer is a 
Delco radio in their vehicles or maybe they should put 5 different 
vendor radios in their vehicles and let the consumer choose which 
one. . . .
    AOL/Time Warner should be the ones with their heads on the block 
. . . are they not a ``Monopoly'' over the consumer ISP market . . . 
I get a new DVD from them every week offering free hours???? Their 
market base and revenue continue to grow. . . . so I would say they 
have NOT been affected negatively by Microsoft . . . matter of fact 
they wouldn't even be in existence had Microsoft not provided an 
Operating System for them to put their product on. . . . I think a 
lot of companies owe Microsoft an apology not a knife in the back. . 
. .
    As far as Sun and Oracle . . . their CEO's should grow up and 
act their age instead of hounding the media for free publicity about 
``Poor little old me, Microsoft is squashing me'' . . . we all know 
about the little old boy who cried wolf. . . .
    sincerely
    Thomas Bernhardt
    AT&T Business Services
    Networked Management Services
    WK: (407) 829-4050
    MB: (407) 463-2841
    [email protected]



MTC-00013318

From: Ted A Haubein
To: `[email protected]'
Date: 1/17/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
24335 W 54th Street
Shawnee Mission, KS 66226
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
UIS Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to address the recent agreement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice.
    I am for the settlement, which allows Microsoft to get back to 
business. Microsoft is a good company, which provides jobs to 
thousands of people. Employment supports the waning computer 
industry and the economy generally I think the lawsuit was a 
political move from the onset. Microsoft is a very sucessful 
company, and very successful companies make thir competitors 
jealous.
    I understand the settlement was not easy on Microsoft. Microsoft 
has agreed to give computer manufacturers access to coding to 
configure Windows to easy accept non-Microsoft software programs 
that compete with programs included within Windows. They have agreed 
to on going monitoring by technical committee to assure compliance.

[[Page 25740]]

    Microsoft has made many concessions in an effort to settle the 
suit quickly. Now is is time to leave Microsoft alone. Ket's get 
back to business. Approve the agreement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Haubein



MTC-00013319

From: Brian Fennell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    It is of the utmost importance that the greatness by which our 
society has survived, prospered and revolutionized our modern world, 
continues today. I ask you--``where would we be today without Bill 
Gates and Microsoft?'' Should a company be chastised, fined, 
bludgeoned by the weight of the federal government, strictly for 
desiring to build a better mousetrap and turn a buck?
    We are a society of successful capitolists, not a study in 
socialism. Please leave the political rhetoric of the previous 
administration behind and do what is right for America, now more 
than ever.
    Dismiss the case against Microsoft. Focus on what is right for 
America, and show the rest of the country and the world that it 
still pays to work hard and prosper in the greatest country in the 
world.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Fennell
    1004 Hatch Street
    Cincinnati, OH 45202
    513-721-8185



MTC-00013320

From: Peter A. Weller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I favor the settlement currently on the table.
    Peter A. Weller
    1398 Edgewood Dr.,
    Holland, MI 49424



MTC-00013321

From: Frank Mosesso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,
    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 agree with the States that are seeking 
stricter measures to be imposed on Microsoft and encourage you, for 
all our sakes, to implement them in your judgements against them. 
Please consider that if IBM's efforts can be marginalized when 
trying to compete against Microsoft's monopoly then who can?
    Sincerely,
    Frank D. Mosesso
    4118 Inspiration Street
    Schwenksville, PA, 19473



MTC-00013322

From: Joanne Yakim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1611 Franklin Fields
Sewickley, Pennsylvania 15143
January 17,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft supporter, I am happy to hear that a settlement 
has been reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft in 
regards to the antitrust case. After three years of legal action, 
this settlement has been long overdue. Microsoft has produced some 
of the most advanced technologies for its time and rather than 
impede its progress any longer, the government should accept this 
settlement and move forward onto more important matters.
    In taking the best interest of the public and the industry into 
consideration, this settlement offers very reasonable and fair 
solutions. Microsoft's dedication to this settlement are already 
apparent in the recent release of Windows XP which is a program that 
demonstrates the way that Microsoft will make it easier to promote 
non-Microsoft software programs within Windows. In order to assure 
the court and the people that Microsoft is adhering to this 
agreement, the company has consented to the development of a three-
person committee that will monitor the software company very 
closely. This is comforting in the sense that future violations will 
be prevented.
    I feel that Microsoft is a great company and that it is time for 
progress to be reinitiated. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Joanne I. Yakim
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00013323

From: Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:07am
Subject: Re: MacNN: The Macintosh News Network
    I urge you to impose significantly more strict measures on 
Microsoft. This is their second time around the ani-trust issue. 
They have shown total disregard for the law and the courts. Their 
own suggested settlement to the class action suits is an example of 
this. They would like to give away free software, their own, to 
schools. This is one of the only markets in which they do not 
already have a firm monopoly. This settlement, they know, would give 
them a push toward domination. After all, giving away software costs 
them almost nothing. Nothing more than the media it is stored on.
    I have read others suggestions that MS be forced to open their 
Application Programming Interfaces to other companies to allow 
better integration of programs with the Windows OS. This seems like 
a drastic step, but a necessary one. As long as this company is not 
broken up into competing entities, constant supervision of it's 
actions will be necessary. Breaking up MS would benefit consumers in 
many ways. It would prevent MS from creating features in it's Office 
Suites and other programs which only work in their own OS. It would 
force them to create open standards in the Windows OS and create an 
environment where excellence in developing software is what sells. 
It would create options for consumers and result in improved 
products. What monopoly innovates without pressure from the 
marketplace? What monopoly provides excellent customer service? 
None. Just look at service from Cable TV companies as an example. 
They are a disaster. Only threat of government intervention 
precludes the system from becoming even worse. The result is a 
system which only provides just enough service to prevent the 
government stepping in.
    In closing I would like you to know that I own MS stock which 
has been a great investment. However, I can not in good conscience I 
must stand up and speak out against the actions of Microsoft.



MTC-00013324

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:15am
Subject: Monopolies lead to Mediocrity
    I have been a part of the computer industry since 1979 and so 
have observed the rise of Microsoft firsthand and also suffered 
through its consequences. It has puzzled me over the years why 
business leaders approach IT technology differently than other 
aspects of their business. Where else would you ever rely on a 
single vendor. If I was commissioned to buy a piece of hardware, it 
was always ``Get me three quotes''. However, if we needed to 
purchase software, first it was ``Buy IBM'' and now it is ``Buy 
Microsoft''. Was it fear or ignorance of all things technical?
    Now, America must compete on a global stage. Allowing Microsoft 
to dominate such a key industry leads only to high prices for 
consumers and mediocrity in the products provided by the monopoly. 
Our free enterprise system requires competition to survive. That is 
why we have monopoly laws. One can only speculate on the motives of 
the DOJ in agreeing to such a ridiculous settlement. The decision to 
split
    Microsoft into two companies was clearly the right choice.
    Cynthia Jeness



MTC-00013325

From: Eric

[[Page 25741]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    As a long time developer--using Microsoft products--and computer 
enthusiast, I would like to say that any proposed action that does 
not include harsh punitive measures and very strict ``go forward'' 
conditions will not be satisfactory.
    Microsoft has repeatedly leveraged it's position on the desktop 
to force competitors out of the business. Many small companies have 
been purchased by Microsoft--and then never heard from again. 
Presumably to stifle the direction that the company was moving. 
Microsoft gave away ``free'' their Internet Explorer browser as part 
of the operating system , but in doing so, they ruined the browser 
market.
    They have corrupted web standards in paticular by adding in 
``gotchas''. I am a Web Developer and it is very painful to have to 
deal with multiple visions of ``standards''. Due to Microsoft's 
desktop control, anything written with general approved 
``standards'' will frequently not work correctly in their browsers. 
Microsoft has made feeble attempts at working with approved W3C 
standards, but, in my estimation, only as a token gesture. Thus, in 
order to provide content to the millions of people on the internet 
which should be based on approved ``standards'', one must take into 
account the MS browsers that will inevitably fail due to MS 
``standards'' being the norm as MOST users will be using that 
browser.
    I believe the whole concept is rather difficult to explain, but 
we have a company that is able to dictate with complete impunity the 
direction that any future software will take. That situation needs 
to be addressed and remedied with the same impunity.
    Microsoft has ignored improving the state of it's software and 
put the consumer in a very poor position. As we see on a very 
regular basis, Microsoft's software is frequently very buggy, full 
of security holes, and in general something that would not be 
tolerated in any other market. Yet, currently there is no other 
widespread option. I personally have turned to Linux in an attempt 
to rid myself of the Microsoft ``scourge''. But I am also a 20 year 
computer user with serious technical background--and still develop 
with Microsoft technologies for my employer. That is NOT to say that 
Linux will not be viable in the future, but currently it is not 
ready for mainstream. Could computer manufacturers put something 
else on their machines? The answer currently is a shaky ``Yes'', but 
I believe only due to the current scrutiny that Microsoft is under. 
The moment the limelight turns elsewhere, Microsoft will heavily 
discourage and make it generally unprofitable for those 
manufacturers to choose any other path than that dictated by 
Microsoft--unless very closely monitored.
    Software innovation has been stifled by the Microsoft dominance. 
As pointed out above, the software that they produce is not the 
epitome of reliabilty. If an auto manufacturer released a car that 
would fail with the regularity of Microsoft software, there would be 
horrible repercussions until that product was withdrawn or re-
engineered to reliable specifications. Yet we are subjected on a 
daily basis to software that is very poor. Why? They have no need to 
innovate or improve as their position is very secure. It has become 
rather routine for them to buy a company to rid itself of the 
competition that a startup company's product may bring at maturity.
    Prior efforts by the government to contain Microsoft have failed 
miserably. They are a very large company with huge cash reserves. 
The proposed settlement in which Microsoft gives away it's operating 
system to public schools may sound like a grand gesture. In review, 
it is nothing more than yet another marketing ploy.
    I cannot believe that our government, under the auspices of 
protecting the consumer, would be agreeable to allowing Microsoft to 
further spread it's market share in a government sanctioned 
settlement such as the one proposed. This particular aspect of the 
settlement is an incredible miscarriage of justice and in no way 
protects any consumer--and actually adds to the existing problem by 
furthering their monopoly power.
    Microsoft has shown itself to be monopolistic and predatory in 
the legal sense. In the ``fairness'' sense, it has shown itself even 
further lacking. Micorosft has used every opportunity, that, while 
legal is not ``fair'', to control the market and subject users to 
current Microsft whims and desires. They have created a situation 
where most people in the United States are currently paying them on 
a yearly basis to have access to the software that is a very 
important part of this nation's operations. Worse, Microsoft is 
showing strong indications that this is to become worse rather than 
better. They are currently changing their licensing agreements which 
will cost even more than before to the consumer. Microsoft is 
obviously doing nothing to change their behavior by themselves. If 
left unchecked or with poor agreements such as the current proposed 
settlement, the monopoly and situation can only get worse.
    We as a nation have spent millions directly on this case: we as 
businesses forced to use Microsoft software pay daily in ever-
increasing costs of business: and finally, we as consumers pay for 
it on a daily basis with lost productivity waiting for crashes, 
software failures and general poor results using the substandard 
software that has become as necessary as electricity and water to 
us. The only solution for the end consumer at this point is to look 
to our government to step in and rectify this problem.
    Level the playing field. Restore the competition to the software 
industry. Do not allow Microsoft to quietly snicker in the corner 
after they get the opportunity to hook hundreds of thousands of 
young users on Microsoft software. Reject the current proposal and 
draft one with some serious remedies. The monopoly must be broken 
decisively--not coddled or cajoled.
    Cheers!
    Eric Erickson
    112 Trailing Oak Trail
    Clayton, NC 27520



MTC-00013326

From: Chris Bucher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    3Microsoft and other victims of antitrust prosecution are being 
punished for the same moral values that have helped make America the 
beacon of the world: hard work, creativity, achievement. The 
producers are being punished for their ability and success. Unlike 
the kings of the past and governments of the present, Microsoft has 
acquired its wealth, not by confiscation but by production ? by 
creating products that other people want to purchase.'' Bill Gates ? 
no less than the poorest citizen ? has the right to his property and 
to the pursuit of his own happiness. He should not have to justify 
his profits by appealing to ``the good of society'' ? in a nation of 
free individuals, no one exists as a servant of others. Gates has a 
right to make as much money as he can by offering a product others 
may choose to buy. Microsoft has the right to set the terms under 
which it offers these products on the market ? products that would 
not exist if Microsoft had not created them.
    The government assault on Microsoft is being pushed by many of 
Gates1s envy-driven competitors. Their only moral alternative is to 
create their own products and try to persuade the public to buy 
them. Instead ? unable to gain profits by voluntary means ? they 
have resorted to the Tonya Harding approach: if you can1t win 
fairly, then physically cripple your opponent. Supporters of 
antitrust prosecution contend that Microsoft is ``anti-competitive'' 
and in ``restraint of trade.'' The reverse is the case. It is the 
government, which ? by interfering in the marketplace ? is guilty of 
these charges. Competition includes the possibility of one company 
winning all the business, if customers buy its product exclusively. 
By trying to force Microsoft to promote the products of its 
competitors, such as including the Netscape Web browser in Windows, 
the government is interfering with the competitive process and is in 
restraint of trade (``trade'' means voluntary exchange). Such a 
demand is akin to NBC being forced to run ads promoting CBS 
programs. Such demands on Microsoft are a violation of Bill Gates's 
rights, the rights of Microsoft1s shareholders, and of the American 
ideals of justice, rights, and freedom.



MTC-00013327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:10am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft
    I have been watching, listening and reading about the progress 
of the case and can only determine that Microsoft has benefited 
myself and others with there innovative software. If I had a vote in 
the matter, my vote would be pro Microsoft.
    Tom Bell
    Erdenheim, PA



MTC-00013328

From: Darcy Baston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:14am

[[Page 25742]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Give the money to charity. In Africa, the equivalent of two 
trade towers of people die *EACH DAY* of hunger and HIV. Let the 
wealth of the west affect wonderous changes in the east. If 
Microsoft wants to be big enough to rule the world with its 
anticompetitive nature, let it be RESPONSIBLE for the world it 
inherits.
    best wishes,
    Darcy Baston
    Chelmsford, ON
    Canada



MTC-00013330

From: Apostolos Koutropoulos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:17am
Subject: Proposed microsoft settlement.
    It has come to my attention that the U.S. government is asking 
the public for ``advice'' on the Microsoft Anti-trust case.
    I am a computer science student, will be graduating next spring, 
and I have extensive experience with almost all computing platforms.
    The problems with microsoft are numerous. What causes friction 
and causes this company to become monopolistic are two things in my 
view.
    (1) Closed standards and file formats. Microsoft has products, 
like their Microsoft Office suite for instance, that use proprietary 
file formats that can only be viewed with Microsoft Office Products. 
That being the case, if someone e-mails me, or gives me a microsoft 
word document to read, I absolutelly must have miscrosoft word! 
Microsoft should provide free viewers for their documents so that 
people are not forced to buy products that they dont need. 
Especially Microsoft Office which costs about $500 USD.
    Other companies, like Adobe, have done this. PDF for instance is 
a format by adobe widelly used around the globe. People who wish to 
author works in PDF format may buy the product from adobe. People 
who just wish to view the documents sent to them, or downloaded from 
the internet need only go to adobe's site and download a *free* 
viewer.
    (2) The second thind that makes microsoft a monopoly is the fact 
that ``PC'' buyers do not have an option as to what operating system 
comes with their computer. Computers come ``preinstalled'' with 
windows, and the consumer has no say in it. They *must* pay for the 
price of windows when they buy a new computer even if they do not 
want it! This seems to me like extortion!
    Users should be able to pick any operating system they want to 
go with their computer, so computers of the intel (or intel 
compatible chip) kind must not come preinstalled with windows in 
order to give the consumer choice! Most consumers like myself 
window-shop, they compare prices, and features, and the bells-and-
whistles of a product before they buy. If they have a choice between 
Windows (Which costs about $200, $300 if you choose the professional 
version), linux (which costs about $70) which comes with a lot of 
extras, or other operating systems that are free, or cost less than 
$200 and offer more than windows offers, people will go with what is 
sensible to their wallet and their productity.
    Let the consumer choose and not be highjacked by microsoft 
tactics.
    Thank you for your time and your consideration.
    Apostolos Koutropoulos



MTC-00013331

From: Jeff Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Nothing short of breaking up the company will resolve the 
predatory practices of this monopoly.
    They are stifling innovation and their shoddy products are 
crippling our productivity. Please break them up!



MTC-00013332

From: Ray Drainville / Argument from Design
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I'm against the proposed settlement as it stands. Giving MS a 
way into the academic sector is just handing them another market--
one of the few left, incidentally, in which they have stiff 
competition.
    I urge the breakup of the company into at least two parts.
    Best,
    Ray Drainville
    US Citizen living overseas
    Argument from Design-Web & Multimedia
    [email protected]  http://www.ardes.com



MTC-00013333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:35am
Subject: Settlement
    Would recomend that all states be made to accept settlement 
offer.
    Libbie and Bob DeRose
    [email protected]
    (803) 366-2573



MTC-00013334

From: Mark Christensen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A developer for Windows and Unix based operating systems, I have 
a firm admiration for the Windows API, but I will always have to 
play second fiddle to Microsoft, because they have not published the 
API in detail. On the other hand the API's underlying a basic Unix 
operating system are not only widely know, but there are a dozen or 
more operating systems which use the same API, and which can run the 
same programs (once they are recompiled) thanks to the POSIX 
standard. These operating systems compete based on a wide variety of 
features including stability, added functionality, and price. The 
same should be true in the desktop OS space which is dominated by 
Microsoft, and that is why Microsoft should be required to publish 
in full detail the Windows API, and an independent code review 
should be done on major applications produced by Microsoft to show 
that they are not using any undocumented system calls. Beyond that, 
opening up the file formats for Microsoft Office would do a great 
deal to allow users to take their data with them, if they do at some 
point choose to use another operating system at some time in the 
future.
    Yours
    Mark Christensen
    Network Administrator
    Humantech, Inc
    Ann Arbor MI 48108



MTC-00013335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should leave Microsoft alone. On the charges that 
it undercut competitors prices yet gouged consumers-- does that 
really make sense. Personally, I didn't happen to notice an increase 
in their software products. (and if there was over the years I 
thought it would be due to improvements in the products because of 
upgrades) I don't see what's wrong in having a standard on a 
computer or allowing a browser to be connected---it makes things 
easier when a lot of people don't even know how to navigate around 
their desktop. This started with the Clinton Administration---they 
went after the wrong enemy.
    A prosperous company that created jobs for many people and they 
ignored the threat of terrorism. We should THANK GOD that people 
like Bill Gates exist, it makes this country great and Innovative
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013337

From: Thomas R. Mertz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:46am
Subject: Attorney General's Letter.
    Dear Sir, I have webtv with MSN Search Engine. The attachment 
will not come through my Web Tv. If you will Email the letter, 
rather than the attachment, I can proceed.
    Thank You,
    Thom Mertz



MTC-00013339

From: David Barto
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/17/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    An article posted on line at http://salon.com/tech/col/rose/
2002/01/16/competition/index1.html gives a good suggestion and valid 
reasons to force microsoft to open up and document the Application 
Programming Interface (API) for windows. This can be summarized as: 
competition. If microsoft were forced to release the API for others 
to study and understand, Microsoft would lose nothing. They would 
still have years of lead time in bringing products to market. 
However they would have to be aware that others would now be able to 
support software which was originally tied to the windows operating 
system on other systems. Linux would probably be the first with a 
compatible API to allow windows code to be executed in another 
operating system. This would allow end users to choose between 
windows and

[[Page 25743]]

linux as the 'core' operating system while still using the software 
they know and love. Office, Excel and other programs, coded to the 
public and published API would execute anywhere the API is 
supported.
    Microsoft wins, because MORE people would write software which 
could be run on windows. Further, microsoft wins because if the API 
was supported in other operating systems (MacOS X, Linux, Solaris) 
then people would be more likely to purchase Office, Excel, 
Microsoft Flight Simulator, and other software written by microsoft, 
since it now runs on their OS, and the current wide spread use of 
these programs ensures that they are the 'business standard' which 
everyone would want.
    The end user wins because they now have choice about which 
operating system they want to use. If they want a free operating 
system (Linux) to lower their cost of computing, with no support, 
they can do that and still run the microsoft programs that they want 
or need to run. If they want a supported operating system (windows) 
to ensure that they have something which will work, then they can 
pay for it.
    The government wins because competition is restored to the 
market place. To allow microsoft off with anything less would be to 
repeat past mistakes and allow microsoft to continue to monopolize 
the personal computing landscape.
    David [email protected]@visionpro.com



MTC-00013340

From: Pat Egger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Comment (Tunney Act)
    Dear US Government:
    Please inform the Judge in the Microsoft anti-trust case that I 
feel the settlement is fair, and the nine States that are fighting 
it should be forced to abide by the settlement.
    Having software that can interface smoothly is key to the 
productivity of the nation. I remember 10 years ago when there were 
so many mix matched programs being used that it could take literally 
hours just to convert e-mail attachments (if at all) to formats that 
were common so business could flow smoothly. All I have seen is 
allot of bang for the buck with regard to the Microsoft software, 
and a weeding out of the programs that the mass majority of 
consumers did not want.
    Please get this resolved soon so a big component of our economy 
is not further hamstrung with posturing and politics by those 
holdout States.
    Thank you for taking my comments into consideration when ruling 
on this case.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick S. Egger
    Wasilla, Alaska



MTC-00013341

From: Patrick Sheehan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My one thought is that Microsoft be ordered to expend some 
amount of its capital to either purchase and distribute competitor's 
products or advertising time/space for such products.
    Four competitors seem to have been (and continue to be) most 
strongly impacted by Microsoft's actions and they are: America 
Online, Apple Computer, Oracle, and Sun Microsystems.
    Thank you for your time,
    Patrick Sheehan



MTC-00013342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an engineer and software developer with over 12 years of 
experience I had the opportunity to work with many products from 
several competing companies. In all these years I have found that 
Microsoft has being the most open to providing user information, the 
most cost effective and the only one truly committed to preserving 
the end users invested value on their product. As an example, I 
would like to point out over the past 5 years several competitors of 
Microsoft (i.e. Sun, Apple) have chosen incorporate new technologies 
or products which in turn are completely incompatible with their 
older versions and have truly forced their customers into upgrade 
paths with disregards to the cost inquired by their users. Microsoft 
has never had this philosophy which in is why I have become a very 
satisfied customer.
    I truly believe that this whole exercise in futility has only 
help to enhance Lawyer's careers and has being an attempt to 
preserve the status quo of a few technology companies who believe 
that they are owe a particular market segment.
    Thank you
    David A. Cispedes M
    Staff Engineer--Software
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013343

From: atg(a)pobox.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Just say NO!!!
    DOJ,
    Microsoft must pay for it's monopolistic practices.
    The market MUST be leveled and protection given to competitors 
or Microsoft will continue to abuse it's monopoly.
    The US Government MUST fulfill it's duty to the people of the 
United States and not to campaign contributors. The people of the US 
do NOT want a monopoly to exist no matter what the President or the 
Attorney General say. This settlement is NOT good for the American 
people (or the world for that matter) no matter what anyone says. 
The only people who want a settlement that benefits Microsoft are 
those who would benefit from such a settlement. Do the math and see 
for yourself what the answer is.
    The DOJ MUST punish Microsoft for it's abuses and put in place 
remedies that will ensure a fair environment for other software 
manufacturers. If this means that Microsoft must forfeit 
intellectural property, then so be it. They have been judged guilty, 
then like any other criminal enterprise, they must pay a price for 
their crimes.
    If the DOJ does not punish Microsoft and establish efficient 
protections for other software makers, then the DOJ will have failed 
the American people just as surely as it's Attorney General already 
has.
    Do not fail us this time.
    Break Microsoft apart.



MTC-00013344

From: Paul Bruneau
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public comment regarding the Microsoft Settlement under the 
Tunney Act: A company is found guilty of breaking the law regarding 
their monopoly. For ``punishment'' they are supposed to donate their 
own product to one of the only markets where they do not have a 
monopoly (which was gained through illegal methods). How is this 
justice?
    The harm done to Microsoft's competitors (and to the public via 
monopoly pricing and lost competition) cannot be undone. But the 
only way to reduce future harm (caused by their monopoly) is to 
divide the company so that the operating system is produced by a 
separate company than applications. In this way, the bundling that 
Microsoft has done so many times in the past to promote its weak 
products can be stopped and real competition can come back to the 
software industry.
    Looking at what happened to Netscape, who at one time had a 
superior product with 80% market share, then saw it sapped away 
because Microsoft forced computer makers to pre-install Internet 
Explorer if they wanted to be sold Windows, how can anyone doubt the 
harm that Microsoft has caused through its practices?
    Paul Bruneau
    1918 Greenbriar Dr.
    Portage, MI 49024
    IT Manager by trade



MTC-00013345

From: Justin M. Friel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing the proposed final settlement, I feel that is 
far too lenient.
    As an IT professional, it is my belief that Microsoft has been 
strangling the rate of growth of technology fro too long. this 
affects how well we, as administrators and developers can perform 
and, in turn, how well businesses themselves can perform.
    the judgment should be far more severe.



MTC-00013346

From: Nils-Erik Thorell
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments on the Microsoft Settlement The computer and 
software business is very different from normal consumer goods 
businesses. For example, with gasoline, it dosen't matter which 
brand you buy. But in the computer business it is extremely 
important to be compatible with existing software. That is why the 
consumer doesn't

[[Page 25744]]

want ten different operating systems. The price of the operating 
system and other software is relatively irrelevant, compared to the 
education cost.
    That is why customers tend to purchase software from the 
dominant player in the field. We don't want installation problems 
and re-training costs. I would guess that the cost for training is 
more than ten times the cost of the software itself. In other words, 
the cost of the software purchase is insignificant for most 
companies. It was different in the early eithies, when the purchase 
price was ten times higher! (Vax hardware and software). So, for the 
average company, the so called monopoly is actually good for the 
economy. The consumer himself, chooses the dominating standard. It 
have tried to switch to Linux and MacIntosh, but it is so hard to 
learn from scratch.
    I think the economic boom of the nineties, was caused by the 
expensive standard software created by Microsoft. The economic boom 
didn't end until there was a threat to damage and split Microsoft. 
So, law suite against Microsoft has done more damage to the 
consumer, than Microsoft has done to the consumer.
    That is my honest opinion.
    Nils Thorell



MTC-00013347

From: Michael Locke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm tired of seeing Microsoft bully everyone around. I'm tired 
of hearing Bill Gates say that they need the ``freedom to 
innovate''. When was the last time Microsoft ``innovated'' anything? 
Microsoft needs to be sent a message.



MTC-00013348

From: Ron Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi: Just wanted to comment that I think Microsoft will benefit 
from the current ruling as they will now have a ``government 
blessed'' path into a market that has typically not been a Microsoft 
monopoly. ( Education) A better solution might be for Microsoft to 
be forced to buy a competitor's product, such as more Apple 
computers, and supply them to the Education market. That process 
would actually create a more competitive market! The way it now 
stands, schools, which normally have low budgets, will see the 
option of ``free'' computers and software from Microsoft or to have 
to spend money to buy competitors products. Which do you think most 
schools will choose and how can Microsoft really be ``hurt'' by 
``seeding'' a foundation of even more kids learning on Microsoft 
products.
    Ron Anderson



MTC-00013349

From: daVe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use, and am satisfied with the products of Microsoft 
Corporation. However, a monopoly is a monopoly.
    There is no mistaking that Microsoft Corporation have no 
effective competition in the software market(Operating Systems in 
particular). As Scott Rosenberg has clearly pointed out in a an 
article which can be found at http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/
2002/01/16/competition/index.html, without Microsofts APIs 
documented, there can't and won't be competition. This monopoly, 
this clear breach of Law cannot go without action. If the Anti-trust 
laws are to be upheld then Microsofts APIs and file formats must be 
fully standardized, documented and published. Market competition is 
the spirit of the freeworld.
    God's Will be done.
    daVe ---



MTC-00013350

From: Mike Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Microsoft is a monopoly. End of story. Their new operating 
system is more restrictive to competition than any other operating 
system in history. To say that this settlement is anything other 
than a complete cave to the Microsoft juggernaut is a face saving 
move.
    DO NOT LET THIS GO THROUGH. START THE SAME PROCESS WITH XP.
    Thanks for your time,
    Mike Moore
    Staff Software engineer



MTC-00013351

From: Bill Liedtke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:27am
Subject: THE MICROSOFT CASE
To: Department of Justice
From: William P. Liedtke, Attorney
    This memo is public comment about the Microsoft Litigation. The 
Microsoft Litigation should be settled. The terms are fair. All 
states and parties excluded from the settlement should be brought in 
by this Court--to avoid a multiplicity of litigation.
    As seen in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, Microsoft will now 
focus much of its resources on security. Security is to assist all 
who have Microsoft products.
    Get this Microsoft litigation behind us, or it will look like 
every time a company is sucessful, the government has to step in, to 
pull such company down in some manner.
    The goal of protracted litigation is damage to the defendant, 
through the costs of such defense. Here we have the limitless assets 
of the U. S. government against one company for years of litigation. 
If such was your goal it has been achieved.
    If the goal was to get Bill Gates out of the day to day running 
of the corporation, such goal has been achieved.
    If the goal was to publicly humiliate and bring to public 
attention one company that was too successful, such goal has been 
achieved. The goal of public litigation should be clear, spelled out 
for the defendant and for members of the public at large who pay for 
such litigation. No one knows the government goals at this time, as 
all the original goals have been achieved.
    Enough is enough. As a fair and impartial Court would say, 
``Would the attorney for the government please move on.''
    William P. Liedtke, Attorney



MTC-00013352

From: Russell Branton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letters to Attorney General and Sen. Santorum sent 1/17/02.



MTC-00013353

From: nathaniel adam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Nathaniel Adam
    Student
    I know this is a copy of a letter, but it summed up things so 
nicely.



MTC-00013354

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am disgusted with the entire trial of Microsoft by the Federal 
Government, and by the states. This entire matter is politically 
inspired, and fostered by competitors that could not compete. 
Microsoft Corp. is the one company that is successful world-wide, 
and which offers products and services that the entire world needs 
and desires. To have our own politicians and courts attempt to 
destroy it with a ``feeding frenzy'' is ludicrous, and

[[Page 25745]]

will only cause the european regulators to follow suit. I have 
purchased, and will continue to purchase software for use with my 
Windows program, and I am thankful that Microsoft has made it 
possible for some uniformity to exist in this important industry. I 
am thankful that Bill Gates and Microsoft exists, and that it is a 
United States corporation, rather than Japanese or european.
    Every competitor would like to see their competition slowed 
down, or destroyed, and it is sad for consumers to see that the 
politicians, and even the courts, can make these losers, the selfish 
businessmen, the winners. Let the settlement stand. Microsoft has 
already been attacked beyond any degree of fairness.
    The Telecommunications Industry is in chaos, largely the result 
of political and legal interventions; please do not do the same to 
leading companies in all other industries, and specifically, 
Microsoft.
    Glenn W. Sedgwick



MTC-00013355

From: Tom Byers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:29am
Subject: Make Them Pay
    Microsoft has taken a good stand in talking about $1 Billion to 
education. They should be forced to donate the money in cash, not 
goods. Why give them another inroad into a market which they can 
monopolize. If money is provided, the local school can have a choice 
on how to spend it and THEY can choose Wintel or Apple, not 
Microsoft. Don't harm free enterprise any further by granting 
Microsoft the means to get out from under it's obligation by 
providing less that state of the art computers and accesories to 
schools that will be locked into staying with the same software and 
hardware vendor.
    Thank You
    Tom Byers
    St. Louis



MTC-00013356

From: The Allbee's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:22pm
Subject: Anti-trust
    I don't see how the courts can continue to let Microsoft get 
away with this HUGE monopoly. Its been going on for so long, isn't 
it about time to stop it.
    Mike Allbee



MTC-00013358

From: Andrew K. Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to submit comments on the Microsoft Settlement 
issue. As a computer professional of fourteen years and a hobbyist 
prior to that, I have seen the age of the PC since its beginning. I 
have been able to witness the advances that have been made and the 
changes that have occurred in the marketplace. One can hardly have 
seen these times and not know that something is very, very wrong. It 
is a principal tenet of capitalism that competition benefits both 
the marketplace and the consumer. Having twice been declared a 
monopoly and those findings having been repeatedly upheld, we must 
ask ourselves whether we are strong enough to stand by our beliefs.
    Status quo is easy; it is comfortable. And it is human nature to 
seek that where chaos would otherwise be the case. And that is what 
the Microsoft monopoly has given consumers.
    Take, for example, the last four upgrade cycles of the Microsoft 
Office suite: Office 95, 97, 2000, and XP. Encompassing six years 
there has been insignificant change except once when they changed 
their file formats, presumably to break WordPerfect's ability to 
read and write Microsoft file formats. Even now, would-be 
competitors struggle with the state of lock-in that Microsoft 
enjoys. Companies and individuals who would choose to use other 
software are prevented by this simple phrase, ``Please send your 
resume in Word format.''
    Take another example, Microsoft IIS. This is widely known to be 
the buggiest, most insecure web platform available. Combined with 
their Internet Explorer and Outlook applications, this triumvirate 
of vulnerability has cost companies by most estimates billions of 
dollars. Repeatedly new exploits and viruses come to light and 
repeatedly companies and individuals are forced to react, spending 
time and money just to protect themselves from these threats or risk 
losing data, time, and money to an attack. This has cost Americans 
billions of dollars; that is billions of dollars out of our economy, 
out of our pockets. How can one company be allowed to exercise its 
whim in the marketplace while releasing software that causes as many 
problems as it solves? How can one company be allowed to impose 
their negligence, irresponsibility, and outright greed upon the 
American people before the government will interpose itself with the 
force of law to put an end to it?
    And let us examine Microsoft's strategy with the Java platform. 
Its first strategy was to attempt to hijack it to make it another 
Microsoft platform. When they lost the court case they took another 
route: drop Java support and release their own imitation. (C# is 
designed to mimic Java on many levels with the obvious strategy of 
luring Java developers to the Microsoft platform.) Java is a 
technology that has benefited consumers greatly. It has enhanced the 
internet experience with Java applets that add functionality to web 
pages. It has enhanced the ability of content and service providers 
to serve up dynamic content.
    Yet with Microsoft's latest release of Windows and with its last 
two releases of Internet Explorer, it has intentionally stopped 
shipping a Java Virtual Machine, even the one they are still allowed 
to by the terms of the court case. Who suffers? Consumers who are 
unable to browse hundreds of thousands of web sites that utilze this 
technology.
    When these are combined with the forced distribution that 
Microsoft enjoys through its OEM licenses computer buyers are forced 
to buy Microsoft software whether they want to or not; whether they 
use it or not. Microsoft has spent millions of dollars marketing 
against computers sold without an operating system despite the 
availability of free, open operating systems sych as FreeBSD. I am a 
user of alternative operating systems yet when I call Dell and ask 
to purchase a computer without any Microsoft software, what do they 
tell me? ``I'm sorry, we cannot sell you a computer like that.'' 
Forget asking for another operating system.
    And Microsoft still tries to maintain this same behavior under 
more insidious guises: As a settlement to the class action lawsuits 
brought against them they have propsed giving their software to 
schools. Why is this a problem? First, this has been the primary 
market of their main competitor, Apple Computers, for the past 
fifteen years. This would give them goverment-granted priviledge to 
force themselves into another market where they could then benefit 
from lock-in since those schools will have neither the funds nor the 
expertise to change once locked in to the Microsoft platform. This 
is a very recent example that Microsoft has not changed its ways, 
but rather is still constantly seeking unfair advantage in a market 
it already dominates.
    Myself and hundreds others like myself could write pages--
volumes--on this topic. The message would be the same. Microsoft has 
proven itself unable and/or unwilling to restrain its behavior in 
the marketplace. Therefore it is time for serious government 
interposition. Another slap on the wrist will not solve the problem. 
Microsoft has proven with the previous consent decree that they 
defied that they will not abide the terms of any behavior 
modification agreements. They have billions of dollars on hand--any 
financial penalty would be a buy-off.
    The only answer is to assert a penalty over the very thing they 
have abused to gain and maintain their monopoly: their intellectual 
property. Microsoft should be forced to open up all of its APIs and 
file formats prior to new releases of software that utilizes them. 
These should be made available on public web servers that impose no 
access control or logging facility. Microsoft should be restricted 
from making changes to these specifications without providing free 
and public notice a fair period of time in advance of the release of 
said changes. This should be audited by a government-selected third-
party review board who must clear any release of Microsoft software, 
and in case of violation, an immediate injunction on the release of 
the violating software must be imposed. Only in such a situation 
will Microsoft be forced to compete fairly once again.
    While Microsoft would of course object strongly to being forced 
to make available it's proprietary knowledge, I would make two 
points. First, Microsoft is a repeat-offender and must be dealt with 
more harshly than a first-time offender. Second, this suggestion 
does not require Microsoft to reveal how them implement those APIs 
and file formats, any would-be competitors will still be faced with 
the challenge of implementing those themselves. All this does is 
provide an opportunity. I hope these suggestions will be given 
careful consideration and I hope the importance of this remedy be 
given serious reflection before yielding to a powerful corporation. 
It is, after all, We the People, not the corporations who the 
Constitution was designed to protect; and that should be of the 
utmost importance in such affairs.

[[Page 25746]]

    Sincerely,
    Andrew K. Martin
    Citizen, Voter, Father, and CTO of a small software company



MTC-00013359

From: Jeff Krukin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Clear DayI am delighted that US District Judge Motz rejected 
Microsoft's offer to donate pc's and software to schools as part of 
its settlement. This plays right into Microsoft's hands, allowing 
them to extend their Windows monopoly to one of the few markets not 
yet controlled by Microsoft. I work in the Information Technology 
sector and have used Microsoft products for almost twenty years. 
I've used Windows from the days of its 16-bit, Version 2.0 
incarnation. While the product has steadily improved in function and 
reliability, it still is not rock solid. Windows XP, the latest 
version, has significant security flaws. For both businesses and 
individuals alike, every version of Windows has been a constant 
source of problems and frustration. In industries where companies 
face competition, their products do not survive for so long because 
another company soon provides a superior product. Consider the 
American and Japanese auto industries. Windows survives because of 
Microsoft's incredible power to coerce pc manufacturers to pre-
install Windows on every pc they sell. This creates very difficult 
obstacles for any competitive pc operating system. Windows should be 
considered an infrastructure commodity, much like gasoline, 
electricity, or the telephone dial-tone. Consumers can choose from 
many vendors when they purchase gasoline, but the function provided 
is always the same and it's a stable product. Not so with Windows. 
The vendors of electricity and dial-tone create and sell their 
products within semi-regulated markets, which provides some level of 
consumer protection (how much is a long debate for anothe time) 
while providing a stable product. Not so with Windows. Gasoline, 
electricity, and dial-tone support an economy by allowing many 
products created by many companies to use the same vital 
infrastructure. The gasoline infrastructure is stablized by 
competition and the electricity and dial-tone infrastructures are 
stablized by regulation, thus providing a solid foundation for the 
diversity of products requiring these infrastructures. Not with 
Windows. Microsoft is not regulated like the electric and phone 
utilities, nor is it faced with competition in the desktop operating 
system market. Thus we have a jittery product in Windows.
    I do not wish to see Microsoft regulated like a utility, yet 
Windows must become a commodity. The Dept. of Justice settlement 
should force Microsoft to make Windows source code freely available 
so other software vendors can improve and sell Windows.
    Thank you.
    Jeff Krukin
    ``Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.''
-- John Adams
    ``It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.''
-- W. Edwards Deming



MTC-00013360

From: Will Cashman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:41am
Subject: Tunney Act Comments
    Dear Sirs,
    With regards to the pending case against Microsoft, I must say 
that I have strong reservations about punishing a company that 
builds a better ``mousetrap''. I do understand the issues related to 
some actions undertaking by Microsoft, however, I feel that there 
are better ways to deal with these issues and any consideration of a 
break up does not solve these issues. For instance, I would rather 
see the removal of EULA and the blocking any attempts to produce a 
block of the installation of their product in multiple computers. 
The idea of purchasing a product from a retailer, in which, your 
purchase does not entail the actual Windows disk does trouble me. 
The forcing of an individual to purchase to licenses for more than 
one computer in one's home does present a potential harm to the 
consumer greater than if a company provides supplemental products, 
such as Microsoft Office. I would prefer that Microsoft was left as 
is, and a greater look was taken into the practices that may provide 
a direct harm to the American consumers.
    Thank you,
    William H. Cashman
    1419 Fuller Ave NE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49505



MTC-00013361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:44am
Subject: Fwd: Microsft Settlement
    Sirs
    This email concerns the Microsoft Settlement: It is true that 
Microsoft has dominated the PC operating system for the past ten 
(10) years and has dictated to other software providers the how's, 
when's, where's and to what extent their product can interface with 
the windows operating system. However, by directing and setting an 
industry standard that allowed persons without extensive computer 
back ground to operate many different software programs. Because of 
this commonality (Microsoft Windows) that all other software 
providers had to adhere to the American Business Productivity has 
almost doubled. Every business decision taken by Microsoft has 
resulted in bring the world closer and more efficient.
    There is soon coming a time where we will be able to talk to the 
computer vs. typing (like I am doing) information to the extent that 
the PC will be almost an artificial intelligent agent for us to 
utilize. Microsoft will have had it day and sail along into history, 
but not now!!!! The decision reach I feel is just and the Justice 
Department can far better utilize their assets than watch and hope 
to catch Microsoft with their pants down. We need an Industry 
Standard! and Microsoft is it. The findings from the Court of 
Appeals is tough but it also fair and good for America. Our foreign 
friends are waiting in the wings just hoping that we (USA) will 
weakin our completive position by breaking up Microsoft.
    Please hold to the latest decision and lets get America going 
again.
    R.W. Howard



MTC-00013362

From: Joseph Bast
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Ms. 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:
    I am writing to urge acceptance of the proposed Final Judgment 
offered by the U.S. Department of Justice and endorsed by nine state 
attorneys general to resolve the antitrust case against Microsoft 
Corporation. I am president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, a 
17-year-old independent nonprofit organization based in Chicago. 
Heartland produces research and commentary on a wide range of public 
policy issues for the nation's 8,000 state and national elected 
officials. Our research efforts involve over 100 academics and 130 
state elected officials who serve on advisory boards.
    Last year, I edited and Heartland published Antitrust After 
Microsoft: The Obsolescence of Antitrust in the Digital Era, by 
attorney David Kopel. Kopel's findings are directly relevant to the 
proposed settlement and, I believe, argue in favor of the settlement 
being approved.
    The proposed Final Judgment brings to an end, rightly so, 
litigation that has been rendered meaningless or counterproductive 
by changing market conditions. Since 1998, phenomenal increases have 
occurred in the power of computers, their ability to store 
information, and the speed of data transmission. Products that were 
once at the core of the Microsoft case have disappeared, changed 
dramatically, been superceded by others, or been sold or merged with 
others. The result is a product landscape that would be almost 
unrecognizable to a juror or jurist studying Microsoft in 1998. 
Technological change per se does not mean the Microsoft case was 
without merit. It certainly does not mean Microsoft is innocent of 
the illegal business practices it is charged with. What is clear, 
though, is that Microsoft's actions have not stopped or even slowed 
the rate of technological innovation. Indeed, Microsoft products 
continue to play a major role in making much of that innovation 
possible.
    The proliferation of new products and falling prices makes it 
difficult to defend the assertion that consumers were harmed during 
the 1990s by Microsoft's alleged monopolistic conduct. Evidence of 
any harm to consumers was conspicuously missing during the Microsoft 
trial. The absence in the proposed Final Judgment of payments or 
restitution to consumers or any of Microsoft's competitors is 
entirely appropriate for this reason.

[[Page 25747]]

    Changing technology has transformed the market in which 
Microsoft competes. Competitors who once complained of Microsoft's 
market power have now merged with other competitors and become 
behemoths themselves. Microsoft faces serious competition from 
companies offering software and hardware products that weren't even 
invented when U.S. v. Microsoft was launched. Microsoft's core 
business?-writing the operating systems of personal computers-?is 
under serious challenge from Linux and (to a lesser extent) Apple.
    The center of gravity for computing is shifting away from the PC 
and onto such devices as personal digital assistants and Web-enabled 
telephones. Microsoft's competitors still include AOL, Netscape, 
Sun, and Oracle, but many new names have been added to the list: 
IBM, Sega, Sony, Red Hat, Symbian, Phone.com, AT&T/TCI, 3Com, 
Yahoo!, and even Microsoft's former ally, Intel. Some, like Red Hat, 
are using Linux to compete with Microsoft head-to-head for control 
of the PC operating system market. Others work to shrink that market 
by using non-PC devices to do what PCs used to do, and by writing 
programs in languages that can be read by computers using any 
operating system. The rationale for treating Microsoft as a 
monopolist is evaporating with each passing month as the old 
battleground of the desktop PC becomes less and less relevant to 
consumers and to the IT industry.
    The proposed Final Judgment prohibits Microsoft from engaging in 
business practices, such as retaliating against OEMs that promote or 
sell products that compete with Microsoft products, that the trial 
court, in line with Justice Department antitrust policies, found to 
be anti-competitive. The proposed settlement also requires that 
Microsoft surrender control over the desktop or Start Menu, and make 
some of its intellectual property available to ISVs, OEMs, and other 
partners on a non-discriminatory basis. Compliance is ensured by 
requiring Microsoft to provide on-site office space for and access 
to its records and personnel to a 3-member Technical Committee and 
its staff. Microsoft apparently agrees to these restrictions, so 
there is little reason to argue here that they are unnecessary, 
except as a counterpoint to those who believe such restrictions 
don't go far enough in handicapping Microsoft. The practices that 
the trial court found to be anti-competitive are used routinely and 
legally by other companies in the IT industry and in other 
industries; it is dubious whether there can be an objective 
definition of what constitutes ``anti-competitive practices'' or 
under what conditions ``competitive'' conduct becomes ``anti-
competitive.'' Microsoft's practice of giving discounts to computer 
manufacturers who help develop new versions of Windows, include 
hardware to take full advantage of Windows, and promote the Windows 
name is a standard practice in other industries that works to the 
benefit of consumers.
    The antitrust trial showed how easily antitrust laws can be 
manipulated against almost any company--even a company whose success 
depends on continuously improving its products and lowering its 
prices. David Kopel concluded his analysis convinced that Microsoft 
was a victim of industrial policy gone awry. Government officials 
tried to ``pick a winner'': A Web browser they thought, wrongly, had 
the potential of becoming an applications platform that could 
eventually help another company compete successfully with Microsoft 
Windows in the operating system market. Microsoft's decision to 
launch and aggressively market its own Web browser--a browser that 
most computer magazine reviewers now say is superior to the 
regulators' Chosen One--ruined the plan and embarrassed its authors.
    The original remedies sought against Microsoft have little to do 
with the company's supposed illegal conduct. In particular, the 
proposed breakup of the company into Operating and Applications 
Companies goes far beyond whatever would be necessary to stop anti-
competitive behavior. Breaking up Microsoft would have forced 
American consumers to spend $50 billion to $125 billion more for 
software over a three-year period. Competition would not emerge. 
Innovation, far from being encouraged, would have been squashed. All 
companies and all industries that rely on the new digital 
technologies would have been hurt by Judge Penfield Jackson's 
proposed remedies.
    I hope the court resists suggestions that the settlement 
``doesn't go far enough'' in restricting Microsoft's freedom to 
compete or punishing it for competing too aggressively in the past. 
Justice in this case requires neither. The proposed Final Judgment 
protects the interests of consumers and producers by allowing 
Microsoft and its competitors to compete by producing the high-
quality goods and services that consumers want.
    As Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan said when he joined eight 
other states and the Department of Justice by endorsing the 
settlement, ``The battle has been won. It is time to move on.''
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Bast
    President
    The Heartland Institute
    19 S. LaSalle, Suite 903
    Chicago, IL 60603
    www.heartland.org
    phone 312/377-4000
    fax 312/377-5000
    [email protected]



MTC-00013363

From: James Barger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my disapproval of the Microsoft 
Settlement currently being considered. I believe it will only 
further extend the Microsoft monopoly and a solution encouraging 
other platforms and operating systems would be more effective.
    Thank you.
    James Barger



MTC-00013364

From: Rowe, Ken
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov', 'cbhanif(a)pbpost.com'
Date: 1/17/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    I wish to state here that I'm happy, at least some states, along 
with Florida are primed to hold Microsoft culpable for their 
actions, I very disappointed in Justice and the Administration, for 
again favoring big business over the interests of the general 
public. The Bush's involvement in the S/L bailout, now this, and 
next I'm sure no one at Enron, will be held accountable for their 
fleecing of the public. I would hope the Justice Department would be 
above partisan politics, but that is apparently a laughable desire 
with John Ashcroft in the lead. But, let's see if we can come up 
with a sex scandal that everyone can be happy about wasting 
everyone's time with.



MTC-00013365

From: Bart Windrum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge you to ensure effective relief from Microsoft's anti-
competitive business practices, and not cave in to those who would 
merely slap their corporate wrist.
    Bart Windrum
    Diogenes Inc.
    Denver Development Office
    410 17th St. #1380
    Denver CO 80202
    720 904 2321 x125
    fax 720 904 9032
    [email protected]



MTC-00013366

From: Robert Litan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please substitute this version for the one I just sent. There 
were some mispellings in the prior one. Sorry.
    BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant.
STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel.
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Defendant.
Comment of Robert E. Litan, Roger D. Noll, and William D. Nordhaus 
on the Revised Proposed Final Judgment

I. Introduction

    We are filing these comments on the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment (RPFJ)\1\ and Competitive Impact Statement (CIS)\2\ to 
provide the Justice Department and the court with what we believe is 
a useful economic analysis to assist the court in fashioning the

[[Page 25748]]

appropriate remedy in this matter. In brief, we believe that the 
RPFJ is not in the public interest, as that test is applied under 
the Tunney Act. Accordingly, the RPFJ should either be rejected 
outright now, or the court should refrain from ruling on the RPFJ 
until it has completed its further factual inquiry regarding the 
remedy proposed by the nine states not party to the RPFJ. If, 
however, the court accepts the RPFJ in the meantime, we strongly 
urge it to treat the RPFJ as an interim remedy and expressly leave 
open the possibility of supplementing the RPFJ with the additional 
remedies discussed in detail in this comment. We also recommend that 
in conducting its further factual inquiry in the remedy phase of 
this litigation that the court actively consider a structural remedy 
that would create some competition in the PC operating system market 
that, but for Microsoft's unlawful acts, reasonably could have been 
expected to have emerged by this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Stipulation and Revised 
Proposed Final Judgement (November 6, 2001).
    \2\United States v. Microsoft Corp., Competitive Impact 
Statement (November 15, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Interest of the Commenters

    Each of the signatories of this Comment is a professional 
economist with expertise that is relevant to the matter now before 
the court, namely the design of an appropriate remedy to address 
Microsoft's antitrust violations. We are filing this submission in 
our own personal capacities and not on behalf of the institutions 
with which we are currently affiliated or employed (and identified 
shortly). We are submitting our views to assist the court in 
deciding whether to accept the RPFJ and ultimately in fashioning an 
appropriate remedy. None of us has been employed by or retained as 
consultant on matters before this court for Microsoft, the federal 
or state governments, or any other interested party in this 
litigation. Furthermore, none of us is receiving any compensation 
from anyone for submitting these comments.
    We have followed this case extensively for the past several 
years, in several capacities. Collectively, we joined in filing an 
Amicus Brief on remedies before Judge Jackson in May, 2000, before 
he entered his final judgment on June 7, 2000.\3\ In that brief, we 
urged the court to conduct an evidentiary inquiry before adopting a 
remedy (a procedure that this court will now shortly follow). We 
also described the merits and drawbacks of three basic remedy 
options: a structural remedy, a conduct remedy, and relief requiring 
changes in competitors' access to Microsoft's intellectual property. 
Our brief established, in effect, a rebuttable presumption favoring 
structural relief. We did not support the kind of structural relief 
that the Department of Justice urged upon Judge Jackson and which he 
ultimately accepted: a two-way split of the company between an 
enterprise engaged in Operating Systems (the OS company) and the 
other engaged in applications software (the Applications Company). 
Instead, we made the case for adopting the only remedy we believed 
then (and still believe) would truly restore competition to the OS 
market: a three-way split of Microsoft's OS monopoly (that would 
guarantee the end of the monopoly) and a separate Applications 
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Brief of Amici Robert E. Litan, Roger Noll, William D. 
Norhdaus, and Frederic M. Scherer (filed April 27, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe that we have relevant collective experience and 
insight that can benefit the court. We have worked on and studied 
extensively a wide range of government interventions, including 
deregulation (in airlines, surface transportation, the financial 
sector, electricity and telecommunications, water supply, 
hydrocarbon fuels, broadcasting); structural relief in antitrust 
cases (including U.S. v. AT&T); privatization (electric power, 
telecommunications and water); demonopolization and marketization in 
formerly state-run economies (including the former Soviet Union, 
Romania. and East Germany), and foreign trade cases (including 
tariff and quota relief and structural adjustment).
    We also each have individual experience that is relevant to both 
the broad and narrow issues raised by this case. Robert E. Litan, 
currently the Vice President and Director of the Economic Studies 
Program at the Brookings Institution, was formerly Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division from 
September 1993 until March 1995. During his tenure, he helped 
supervise the first civil antitrust investigation against Microsoft 
and participated actively in negotiating the consent decree limiting 
the company's licensing practices, which this court approved (after 
remand from the Court of Appeals) in 1995. He has closely followed 
the trial and subsequent judicial decisions in this matter and, in 
his recent research, has concentrated on, among other things, 
economic and policy issues relating to the rapid development and use 
of the Internet. Dr. Litan is both an economist and an attorney. 
During the course of his career as an economist, he has written or 
edited 25 books and over 150 articles in journals relating to a 
broad range of economic, regulatory and legal issues. Roger G. Noll 
is the Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy in the 
Department of Economics at Stanford University. Professor Noll is 
the author or editor of thirteen books and over 300 articles, 
focusing on public policies toward business. Among his special areas 
of expertise are the economics of telecommunications, broadcasting 
and the Internet. He has examined privatization and regulation of 
telecommunications, water and electric power firms in many countries 
around world. He also has served on several boards and committees of 
the U.S. government, and has been a consultant to the Antitrust 
Division of the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, 
and the Federal Communications Commission.
    William D. Nordhaus is the Sterling Professor of Economics at 
Yale University, where he has served on the faculty since 1967. From 
1977 to 1979, he was a Member of the U.S. President's Council of 
Economic Advisers. While at the Council of Economic Advisers, he 
established and chaired the Regulatory Analysis Review Group, which 
was charged with analyzing the impacts of major regulations. From 
1986 to 1988, he served as the Provost of Yale University. He is the 
author of many books, among them Invention, Growth and Welfare; 
Reforming Federal Regulation (jointly with Robert Litan); and the 
widely used undergraduate textbook, Economics, now in its sixteenth 
edition (jointly with Paul Samuelson). His research has dealt with 
issues of innovation, technological change, deregulation, and 
demonopolization for Russia and other economies in transition. Dr. 
Nordhaus was an expert witness for AT&T during the government's 
antitrust investigation of that company in the late 1970s and early 
1980s, specifically on issues relating to the impact of the breakup 
of the company on technological change and innovation. He serves on 
a number of government panels, including membership on the 
Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Experts, and he is 
chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis.
    B. Overview of Comments
    1. The Right Remedial Standard: Restoring the Level of 
Competition that Would Have Arisen But For Microsoft's Exclusionary 
Behavior.
    This antitrust case is an unusual one for the court's 
consideration under the Tunney Act because of the stage at which 
this court is reviewing the RPFJ. The typical Tunney Act hearing 
comes before trial, in which the parties have entered into a consent 
decree. Instead, this hearing comes after extensive evidentiary 
hearings and lower court findings of extensive unlawful acts of 
monopolization that have been affirmed (unanimously) by an appellate 
court.\4\ Accordingly, the public interest standard under the Act is 
higher than it would be for the typical pre-trial settlement. The 
public interest standard will not be satisfied by an order simply 
stopping Microsoft from engaging in practices the courts have found 
to be illegal. Instead, the public interest test that is appropriate 
for a case at this stage of litigation involves the same remedial 
standards that courts apply to all parties who are found to have 
engaged in unlawful monopolization. That is, as the Court of Appeals 
noted in quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 
(1972) and United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 
250 (1968), the remedy must not only unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct but also must 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.DC 
1999) (``Findings of Fact''); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 
F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.DC 2000) (``Conclusions of Law''); United States 
v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F 3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001).
    \5\253 F.3d at 103. The DC Circuit also cited in this regard 
United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 577 (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we outlined in our earlier Amicus Brief, we believe there is 
only one remedy that presumptively would terminate the monopoly and 
prevent its recurrence: a structural remedy that first divides 
Microsoft into an Applications entity and an Operating System 
entity, followed by a division of the Operating System entity into 
three separate companies. The DC Circuit rejected a somewhat 
different structural remedy in the

[[Page 25749]]

absence of a factual inquiry to establish that such a solution was 
necessary.\6\ We therefore urge the court to evaluate the RPFJ 
against the backdrop of the factual inquiry that will be conducted 
in the parallel remedy hearing on the proposal of the nine states 
(Litigating States or LS) that are not party to the RPFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\253 F.3d at 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of further fact-finding, we think that it is 
highly unlikely (and certainly premature to assume) that the RPFJ 
satisfies the public interest test. The reasons for this harsh 
assessment are that the RPFJ stops well short of changing the 
structure of the company and introducing any competition into an 
illegally maintained monopoly market; it provides only the barest 
minimum of conduct restrictions; and it offers a defective 
enforcement mechanism. As a result, it will not undo the harms 
arising from Microsoft's unlawful acts. The Justice Department 
articulates a standard that a remedy merely must restore competition 
to the condition existing in 1995, prior to the beginning of 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct.\7\ This standard does not meet the 
United Shoe test and is not in the public interest. This is because 
the middleware threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly, 
provided by the Netscape browser and by the possibility of a JAVA-
based universal translator (as described below), are no longer 
present and the Java threat is now much diminished. The Justice 
Department's proposed standard simply ignores the fact that 
Microsoft's unlawful acts succeeded in vastly weakening the state of 
competition that existed in 1995. Not only would the RPFJ fail to 
meet the United Shoe requirement that the monopoly be terminated, 
but it would also enable Microsoft to continue to enjoy the fruits 
of its unlawful acts. Such an outcome is not in the public interest 
because it would not restore the level of competition that has been 
lost as a result of Microsoft's antitrust violations. The 
appropriate standard instead is whether the proposed relief repairs 
the anti- competitive harm caused by Microsoft's illegal actions. A 
remedy that satisfies this standard must put an immediate end to the 
benefits now accruing to Microsoft as a result of its unlawful 
activity, which means the remedy must restore competition to the 
condition that would have been present in the market by now in the 
absence of Microsoft's unlawful conduct. Therefore, an appropriate 
remedy is one that would produce substantial competition in the 
supply of operating systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\The CIS describes the goal of its efforts as enabling the 
restoration of the competitive threat that middleware products posed 
prior to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings. (CIS at 3.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also concerned that the DOJ's low remedial standard will 
fail to deter future anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft or other 
similarly situated monopolists. Under the DOJ standard, if a 
monopolist quickly squashes a nascent competitor when it comes on 
the scene, before it acquires a significant market share, the 
antitrust penalty will be small because of the small impact that 
competitor has achieved at the time of its demise. This will not 
deter. To the contrary, it will simply encourage a rapid 
anticompetitive response to new entry.
    In addition, our review convinces us that the RPFJ will not even 
satisfy the low remedial standard the Justice Department 
articulated. The core of the DC Circuit decision involved unlawful 
conduct by Microsoft to maintain the applications barrier to entry. 
Despite this, the RPFJ does nothing to reduce that barrier. The RPFJ 
does not even prohibit all the illegal conduct affirmed by the DC 
Circuit most notably, the integration of middleware into the 
operating system through commingling of software code and the 
deception of Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that led them to 
use Microsoft's Java tools.
    Moreover, the term of the decree is only five years, a period 
shorter than the six years since the start of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive campaign in 1995, while the RPFJ is riddled with 
exceptions and loopholes that destroy its effectiveness. These 
exceptions will create a substantial risk that the plaintiffs will 
be required to litigate significant competitive issues every time 
that they believe Microsoft is not in compliance with the RPFJ. 
Microsoft, meanwhile, will certainly challenge any non-compliance 
allegations. The consequent delay will render the decree 
unenforceable and eliminate any incentives for Microsoft to comply. 
Indeed, the RPFJ proposes an enforcement mechanism that itself is 
defective and thus will fail to deter or punish further 
anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. For example, the only specific 
punishment for a pattern of willful and systematic violations is a 
one-time two-year extension of this ineffective decree.
    In short, the RPFJ fails to satisfy the public interest under 
either remedial standard (the DOJ's or the one we believe is more 
appropriate for this case). The RPFJ is a pseudo- remedy that will 
not terminate Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, let alone restore 
competition.

2. DOJ's Flawed Rationale for a Limited Remedy

    In recent statements, Assistant Attorney General Charles James 
has attempted to justify the limitations in the RPFJ on the grounds 
that the DC Circuit significantly narrowed the case.\8\ That 
justification is unwarranted. The government prevailed on the core 
part of the complaint, the Section 2 monopoly maintenance count. 
Furthermore, in reversing the tying and monopoly leveraging counts, 
the court did not excuse the conduct that the government attacked. 
Instead, that very conduct provided the basis for liability for 
monopolization. The fact is that the government won a great victory 
in this important case and the RPFJ threatens to squander that 
success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\Statement of Charles James to Committee of the Judiciary 
(United States Senate), The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the 
Future (December 12, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Justice Department and Microsoft might argue that the RPFJ 
will implement immediate and certain relief, free of litigation 
risk. In particular, the Department and Microsoft might claim that 
absent a settlement, a full-blown remedy hearing with inevitable 
appeals would result in substantial delay in implementation.
    We disagree. First, the RPFJ does not eliminate litigation risk. 
Importantly, enforcement of the RPFJ itself, if approved by the 
court, will be accompanied by very substantial litigation risk. 
Certain key provisions of the RPFJ do nothing more than state the 
antitrust rule of reason, which would require the government to 
prove a new antitrust violation in an enforcement action. Other 
provisions contain exceptions that can effectively and 
inappropriately immunize Microsoft's actions. Thus, if Microsoft 
were to defend against an attempt by the Department to enforce the 
RPFJ, the Department inevitably would find itself in nothing short 
of yet another antitrust suit against Microsoft. In this way, the 
RPFJ is defective because it invites extensive litigation whenever 
any compliance issue is raised. That fact will increase litigation 
risk, not reduce it.
    Second, in our view, the potential litigation delay is an 
inadequate justification for the weakness of the RPFJ. Waiting to 
obtain an effective remedy is better than implementing a RPFJ that 
can only be characterized as a pseudo-remedy. In any event, 
enforcement under the RPFJ will involve substantial delays. Certain 
key provisions of the RPFJ involve significant and unnecessary 
delays of 9-12 months before being implemented. Equally important, 
the reasonableness qualifications and other exceptions written into 
the RPFJ will lead to adjudication delays in any enforcement 
actions.

3. More Effective Remedies

    So what should the court do now? Given that the RPFJ clearly 
fails to meet any conceivable interpretation of the public interest 
standard that would be suitable for a case in which both trial and 
appellate courts have definitively spoken, the clear course is to 
reject the RPFJ, or at the very least, to postpone ruling now and to 
modify the remedy after further evidence is taken during the next 
phase of the litigation. Thus, we certainly agree with this court's 
decision to evaluate in tandem the RPFJ and the remedial proposal of 
the Litigating States. The remedy hearing on the LS proposal will 
provide the court with the opportunity to evaluate the loss of 
competition caused by Microsoft's unlawful conduct over the past six 
years. Comparing the RFPJ with the LS proposal using the evidence 
gathered on the loss of competition will better enable the court to 
choose a remedy commensurate with the competitive harm.
    As we discuss further below, the evidence adduced at trial and 
referenced by the trial court in its Findings of Fact already 
provides adequate evidence to support the conclusion that there was 
a strong causal connection between Microsoft's unlawful conduct and 
the subsequent state of competition in the market. The clear 
implication, therefore, is that a real remedy must reverse that 
impact to be in the public interest. We continue to believe that a 
divestiture that creates three competing OS companies is the most 
effective remedy. But if the court should eventually decide 
otherwise, we urge it to adopt the additional remedies proposed by 
the Litigating States (LS). The LS proposal includes several 
provisions that are designed to reduce the applications barrier to 
entry and thereby significantly increase the

[[Page 25750]]

opportunity to restore the substantial competition foregone as a 
result of Microsoft's actions. It also eliminates key exceptions and 
loopholes and puts teeth into the enforcement mechanism.
    We also recommend strengthening the remedy offered by the 
Litigating States in three ways. First, Microsoft should be required 
to certify compliance with the decree every six months. Second, the 
decree should be supplemented with a crown jewel provision that 
automatically implements a structural remedy--preferably of the type 
we recommend here and suggested earlier in our Amicus Brief--upon 
proof of a pattern of material violations of that decree by 
Microsoft. Third, the term of the decree should be left open, but 
the decree should be reviewed after five years to see whether it can 
be terminated or needs to be modified to make it stronger and more 
effective.

4. Organization of this Comment

    This Comment is organized as follows. Sections II and III 
provide the background for our evaluation. In Section II, we review 
the record on Microsoft's monopoly power and the applications 
barrier to entry. We then review Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive 
conduct. We discuss the harm to competition caused by this conduct, 
including the entrenchment of Microsoft's monopoly power since 1995. 
This harm is described in detail because it is relevant to 
evaluating the RPFJ, which does not attempt to redress this harm. In 
Section III, we describe the goals that a remedy should attain and 
the enforcement principles required to implement the remedy in a way 
that serves the public interest. We then use the facts and 
principles developed in these two sections to evaluate the RPFJ.
    In Section IV, we evaluate the RPFJ on the basis of the CIS's 
stated remedial standard of restoring the competitive threat to the 
level prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct. We find that the RPFJ 
does not achieve that goal because it does not prohibit all of 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct found by the DC Circuit, because it 
contains numerous exceptions and loopholes, and because it contains 
a defective enforcement mechanism.
    In Section V, we explain why the CIS's remedial goal sets too 
low a standard and why the proper standard would be to restore 
competition to the level that would have been achieved by now in the 
absence of the unlawful conduct. In Section VI, we discuss 
alternative remedies that stand a better chance of meeting this more 
appropriate standard. In particular, we discuss the full divestiture 
structural remedy, the conduct remedy proposed by the Litigating 
States, and our suggested modifications to the Litigating States' 
proposal.

II. Microsoft's Possession and Illegal Maintenance of Monopoly Power in 
the Supply of Operating Systems

    The proper place to begin to assess the adequacy of the RPFJ is 
with the fundamental finding of both the District and Appellate 
Courts that Microsoft has continued to possess monopoly power in the 
supply of operating systems (OS), with a 95 percent share of that 
market.\9\ Furthermore, the courts determined that the Mac OS, 
handheld devices, Internet portal sites, and the then-available 
middleware (which is discussed in greater detail below) did not 
impose any meaningful competitive constraint on the pricing or non-
pricing behavior of Microsoft.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\253 F.3d at 51-52.
    \10\Findings of Fact NN21, 23, 27, 28-29 (84 F.Supp.2d at 15, 
17-18), cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 52-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is one thing to acquire and maintain monopoly through lawful 
conduct, but quite another to maintain it through illegal acts. A 
second core finding of both courts is that Microsoft took the latter 
route by engaging in a variety of exclusionary activities to protect 
its monopoly position against growing OS competition. In particular, 
we describe in some detail below how Microsoft exploited the 
applications barrier to entry to prevent the emergence of OS 
competition. The detail is necessary to appreciate the broad 
insufficiency of the RPFJ.

A. The Applications Barrier to Entry

    The government's case against Microsoft rested heavily on the 
existence of an applications barrier to entry. Every operating 
system for a PC exposes (or makes available) to software developers 
application program interfaces (APIs) that developers use to write 
applications (such as spreadsheets, word processing, or games) for 
the OS. In particular, the APIs allow developers to access 
frequently-used routines in the OS that are also used in 
applications, which reduces the costs of and time entailed in 
generating those applications.
    Each operating system has a different set of APIs. Consequently, 
if a software developer wants to create an application for multiple 
operating systems, the developer must tailor the application for 
each OS. This porting of applications from one OS to another is 
costly. As a result, if there were one widely used OS, software 
developers would tend to write for that OS and users of that OS 
would have access to more applications than users of other operating 
systems.
    The cost of porting an application from one OS to another is the 
source of the applications barrier to entry in the supply of 
operating systems. Computer users tend to gravitate towards the 
largest-share OS, because that OS has more applications available 
than other operating systems. As the share of the dominant OS 
becomes even larger, software developers are even less likely to 
port their applications from the increasingly popular OS to other 
increasingly less popular operating systems.
    One very possible result, therefore, is that in such a market, 
ever more consumers will flock to the larger-share OS, while ever 
fewer developers port their applications to other operating systems. 
Ultimately, such a dynamic can lead to the domination of the market 
by a single firm, able to charge what economists call 
supracompetitive'' prices and to earn supranormal profits. If, 
however, entry into the market were relatively easy, high profits 
would attract new firms, and the fear of that entry would encourage 
the dominant firm to continue to innovate in an effort to retain its 
position. But if barriers to entry are high, then fewer firms will 
be able to attract the capital and entrepreneurial talent to 
challenge the dominant OS than would be the case in a market where 
entry barriers are much lower.
    The applications barrier to entry can produce such a sub-optimal 
outcome. Such a barrier arises when most users would not switch from 
the dominant OS because most of the applications software would not 
be available for another OS offered by a new entrant. Consumers 
would instead wait until more applications become available (or are 
imminent) for the entrant OS before switching. The barrier is 
strengthened to the extent software developers will not write for or 
port applications to the entrant OS until it has a sizeable user 
base. In this way, both consumers and developers become locked into 
the dominant OS. This can happen even though it would be in the 
collective interests of both consumers and developers to switch to 
an alternative OS.
    This explanation of the applications barrier to entry was not 
only documented by the Department's own experts prior to the initial 
remedy exercise.\11\ It was also found to exist as a matter of fact 
by the trial court.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\See, for example, Direct Testimony of Franklin M. Fisher at 
9-19, 35-40.
    \12\Findings of Fact NN30, 36-37 (84 F.Supp.2d at 18-20), cited 
by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In principle, the applications barrier to entry in the OS market 
could be overcome if there existed a universal translator that 
reduced the costs of porting applications between the dominant OS 
and other operating systems. If those costs were reduced, software 
developers would be more likely to write applications that can run 
on multiple operating systems. As the courts in this matter 
recognized, middleware could serve as such a universal 
translator.\13\ Middleware is software that can run on top of an 
operating system and expose its own APIs to software developers. Any 
application that could run on the middleware could also run on any 
OS on which the middleware can run. As a result, an application 
written to the APIs of a middleware that can run on multiple 
operating systems would itself also run on those otherwise 
incompatible operating systems. In this way, users of the less 
popular operating systems could have access to the same applications 
available on the more popular operating systems. Similarly, 
developers would have an incentive to write to the middleware's APIs 
because there would be more potential purchasers of the applications 
software than if the developer wrote the application for only one 
OS. In short, the availability of middleware would ensure that 
users' choice of an OS is driven by the price and features of the 
OS, not by the relative number of applications available that flow 
from historical market shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\Findings of Fact 29,72 (84 F.Supp.2d at 17-18, 29), cited by 
the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Middleware Threats to Microsoft's OS Dominance

    In affirming the District Court's conclusion that Microsoft had 
illegally maintained its OS monopoly, the DC Circuit concluded that

[[Page 25751]]

Microsoft's unlawful acts specifically were aimed at thwarting two 
related middleware threats to its monopoly power: Netscape Navigator 
and the Java technologies pioneered by Sun. As we discuss below, 
both threats in fact were successfully neutralized by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct. As a result, Microsoft was able to prevent 
any erosion in the all-important (to Microsoft) applications barrier 
to entry.

1. The Netscape Navigator Threat

    Netscape's Navigator quickly became the leading web browser 
after its introduction in 1994, raising concern at Microsoft that 
Navigator could become the middleware that substantially lowers or 
eliminates the applications barrier to entry.\14\ After failing to 
convince Netscape that Navigator should not be middleware for the 
Windows OS,\15\ Microsoft embarked on a strategy to reduce the use 
of Navigator as a web browser. If Microsoft could succeed in 
substantially reducing Navigator's share of browser usage, its value 
as a platform for software developers would be reduced and therefore 
new (and smaller-share) operating systems would continue to confront 
the applications barrier to entry. In that way, Microsoft would 
protect its OS monopoly. The tactics Microsoft adopted to implement 
this strategy effectively eliminated the most efficient means for 
the distribution of Navigator to consumers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\For example, see Findings of Fact 72, 166 (84 F.Supp.2d at 
29, 51).
    \15\Findings of Fact 79-87 (84 F.Supp.2d at 30-33).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the two most important ways in which Navigator was 
distributed to consumers was through computer manufacturers 
(Original Equipment Manufacturers or OEMs) that would install 
Navigator on computers before being shipped to final consumers or 
retail outlets.\16\ Microsoft imposed restrictions on its OS 
licenses with the OEMs that effectively prevented the OEMs from 
removing the Microsoft browser, Internet Explorer (IE), provided to 
the OEMs as part of the Windows OS package. In particular, the 
agreements with OEMs prevented them from removing any desktop icons, 
folders or start menu entries, including those for IE.\17\ While 
OEMs could technically install Navigator as an additional browser, 
they did not do so because they would then incur substantial support 
costs in responding to the confusion among novice users caused by 
having two browsers on the desktop.\18\ Given the dominance of 
Microsoft's operating system, OEMs had no effective competitive 
alternative to which they could turn if they chose not to accede to 
Microsoft's request.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\Findings of Fact 145 (84 F. Supp.2d at 47), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 60).
    \17\Findings of Fact 213 (84 F. Supp.2d at 61), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 61).
    \18\Findings of Fact 159, 210 (84 F. Supp.2d at 49-50, 60-61), 
cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 61).
    \19\See, for example, Findings of Fact 158 (84 F. Supp.2d at 
49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that IE would not be removed from Windows by the OEMs, 
Microsoft technologically bound Internet Explorer to the Windows 
operating system.\20\ It did so by excluding IE from the Add/Remove 
Programs utility in Windows 98\21\ and by commingling the IE code 
with the OS code.\22\ As with the license restrictions, these 
tactics prevented the OEMs and users from replacing IE with 
Navigator (or any other preferred browser). Indeed, if the OEM or 
user did remove IE from the Windows package, the code commingling 
guaranteed that the cost would have been substantial damage to the 
Windows OS.\23\ Although the OEMs, in principle, could have 
installed Navigator as a second browser, the additional costs 
required to support two browsers discouraged such behavior.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\Findings of Fact N160 (84 F.Supp.2d at 49-50), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 64).
    \21\Findings of Fact N170 (84 F.Supp.2d at 52), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 65).
    \22\Findings of Fact N161 (84 F.Supp.2d at 50), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 65).
    \23\Findings of Fact N164 (84 F.Supp.2d at 50), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 65).
    \24\Findings of Fact N159 (84 F.Supp.2d at 49-50), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 65-66).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second important way in which Navigator at the time was 
distributed to users was through becoming the preferred browser for 
Internet Access Providers (IAPs).\25\ At the OEM level, Microsoft 
prevented the OEMs from modifying the boot sequence of the computer 
when the user turns the computer on for the first time.\26\ 
Previously, many OEMs had used the initial boot to prompt users to 
sign up with an IAP from a menu of IAPs, many of which at the time 
used Navigator as the web browser.\27\ As a result of the 
restriction, Microsoft effectively inhibited OEMs' from promoting 
IAPs using Navigator.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\Findings of Fact N242 (84 F.Supp.2d at 69-70), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 70).
    \26\Findings of Fact N213 (84 F.Supp.2d at 61), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 61).
    \27\Findings of Fact N210, 212 (84 F.Supp.2d at 60-61), cited by 
the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 61-62).
    \28\253 F.3d at 61-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A more direct attack by Microsoft on Netscape's use of IAP 
distribution of Navigator was embodied in exclusive agreements that 
Microsoft signed with all of the leading IAPs. In exchange for 
desktop access in the Windows OS, these IAPs agreed to promote only 
IE and to limit distribution of any IAP software containing 
Navigator to typically no more than 25% of the IAP's access software 
shipments.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\Findings of Fact NN258, 262, 289 (84 F.Supp.2d at 73, 74, 
81), cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two other channels that Netscape could have used to 
distribute its browser:
    Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) and Apple computers. With 
respect to the former, Microsoft concluded contracts with a large 
number of ISVs in which Microsoft agreed to provide the ISV with 
preferential OS support provided that the ISVs use IE as the default 
browser.\30\ With respect to Apple, after threatening to terminate 
the production of its popular Mac Office, Microsoft concluded an 
agreement with Apple in which IE would become the default browser 
for Apple computers and no other browser icon would be placed on the 
desktop of new Macintosh computers or upgrades.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\Findings of Fact N339 (84 F.Supp.2d at 93), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 71-72).
    \31\Findings of Fact 349-352 (84 F.Supp.2d at 73), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District Court found, and the DC Circuit affirmed, that each 
of these tactics was anticompetitive, violating Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act. Collectively, Microsoft used these tactics to 
effectively close the most efficient channels of distribution 
available to Netscape's Navigator. As the Justice Department's own 
CIS observes: [b]ecause of its reduced access to efficient 
distribution channels, Navigator's share of browser use fell 
precipitously.\32\ Thus, Microsoft effectively eliminated Navigator 
as a potential middleware provider, thereby also eliminating the 
possibility that its OS would have to compete on its merits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\CIS at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Java Threat

    Sun Microsystems developed a middleware technology known as 
Java, which consists of four tools: (1) a programming language; (2) 
Java Class Libraries, which are a set of programs in that language 
that expose the APIs; (3) a compiler, which translates the developer 
code into instructions. The Java Class Libraries and the JVM are 
together called the Java runtime environment. Any software 
application that relies on the Java APIs will run on any computer 
with a Java runtime environment.
    In 1995, Netscape agreed to distribute a copy of the Java 
runtime environment with every copy of Netscape Navigator.\33\ At 
the time of the agreement, Navigator's popularity ensured that the 
Java runtime environment would gain wide distribution.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\Findings of Fact N76 (84 F.Supp.2d at 29-30), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 74).
    \34\Findings of Fact N394 (84 F.Supp.2d at 106-107), cited by 
the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In combination with the distribution of Navigator, Sun's Java 
represented a clear and present danger to Microsoft's OS monopoly 
because as middleware, Java had the potential of substantially 
reducing the applications barrier to entry.\35\ Rather than compete 
on the merits, Microsoft responded to the Java-Navigator threat not 
only by the steps already described to limit the distribution of 
Navigator, but by these additional measures:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\Findings of Fact N28 (84 F.Supp.2d at 17), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After developing its own version of the JVM, Microsoft 
negotiated agreements with a large number of leading ISVs in which 
the ISVs agreed to use Microsoft's JVM as the default in any 
software they created.\36\ These agreements were de facto exclusive 
because the use of any other JVM would now require that the ISVs 
incur the costs of porting their Java applications from Microsoft's 
JVM to a Sun-compliant JVM,\37\ which, of course, defeats the cross-
platform purpose of the Java technologies. ? In 1995, when Intel was 
in the process of developing a JVM that would comply with Sun's 
cross-platform standards,

[[Page 25752]]

Microsoft complained that the cooperation between it and Intel could 
be jeopardized if Intel did not end its cooperation with Sun.\38\ 
Intel resisted Microsoft's entreaties until 1997 when Microsoft 
threatened to support one of Intel's competitors, AMD, in the 
development of 3D technology unless Intel stopped its work on Java. 
After this, Intel agreed.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\Findings of Fact N401 (84 F.Supp.2d at 108-109), cited by 
the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 75).
    \37\Findings of Fact N401 (84 F.Supp.2d at 108-109), cited by 
the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 75-76).
    \38\Findings of Fact N396, 404, 405 (84 F.Supp.2d at 107, 109-
110), cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 77).
    \39\Findings of Fact N406 (84 F.Supp.2d at 110), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft developed a set of tools to assist ISVs in creating 
Java applications.\40\ However, unbeknownst to the ISVs, the use of 
these tools would create applications that were incompatible with 
Sun's JVM. Microsoft misled these developers into believing that the 
use of the tools would be of assistance in designing cross-platform 
Java applications.\41\ As a result, ISVs became locked into 
Microsoft's tools, creating large costs of switching back to Sun's 
tools after the ISVs discovered the deception. The District Court 
found each of these tactics to be in violation of Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act, findings that were affirmed by the DC Circuit. The 
acceptance of this promising middleware platform slowed as a result 
of Microsoft's actions. As a result, Microsoft preserved the 
applications barrier to entry and its OS monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\253 F.3d at 76.
    \41\Java developers who were opting for portability over 
performance unwittingly [wrote] Java applications that [ran] only on 
Windows. Conclusions of Law (87 F.Supp.2d at 43), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 76); see also 253 F.3d at 76-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Immediate Harm to Competition and Consumers

    The courts found that each of these tactics adopted by Microsoft 
resulted in direct and immediate harm to competition. By inference, 
therefore, consumers clearly were harmed. For example, with respect 
to commingling of the IE code with the Windows OS code, the DC 
Circuit concluded that: such commingling has an anticompetitive 
effect the commingling deters OEMs from pre-installing rival 
browsers, thereby reducing the rivals' usage share and, hence, 
developers' interest in rivals' APIs as an alternative to the API 
set exposed by Microsoft's operating system.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\253 F.3d at 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC Circuit reached a similar conclusion regarding the 
technological inability of the OEM to remove IE using the Add/Remove 
utility.\43\ Microsoft subsequently requested clarification from the 
DC Circuit that the commingling would not be illegal if the OEM were 
allowed to remove the icon from the desktop. The DC Circuit declined 
the request. \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\Citing the Findings of Fact (N159 (84 F.Supp.2d at 49-50)), 
the DC Circuit concluded that this inability reduces the usage share 
of rival browsers not by making Microsoft's own browser more 
attractive to consumers but, rather, by discouraging OEMs from 
distributing rival products. Because Microsoft's conduct, through 
something other than competition on the merits, has the effect of 
significantly reducing usage of rivals' products and hence 
protecting its own operating system monopoly, it is anticompetitive. 
(253 F.3d at 65.)
    \44\Order (DC Cir. Aug. 2, 2001) (per curiam) (denying the 
motion for immediate issuance of the mandate and the petition for 
rehearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, it is clear that the DC Circuit intended its conclusion 
regarding commingling middleware code. With respect to Netscape 
Navigator distribution, the courts found that Microsoft had 
successfully foreclosed the OEM route for distribution to consumers. 
This was especially clear in Microsoft's successful efforts to 
prevent OEMs from removing IE from the Windows desktop, as to which 
the DC Circuit concluded that: the OEM channel is one of the two 
primary channels for distribution of browsers. By preventing OEMs 
from removing visible means of user access to IE, the license 
restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a rival browser 
and, therefore, protects Microsoft's monopoly from the competition 
that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we conclude that 
the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\253 F.3d at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The courts also found that Microsoft harmed competition by 
disrupting Navigator's ability to be distributed by IAPs. For 
example, the DC Circuit concluded that Microsoft's agreements with 
the IAPs ensured that because: the ``majority'' of all IAP 
subscribers are offered IE either as the default browser or as the 
only browser, Microsoft's deals with the IAPs clearly have a 
significant effect in preserving its monopoly; they help keep usage 
of Navigator below the critical level necessary for Navigator or any 
other rival to pose a real threat to Microsoft's monopoly.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\253 F.3d at 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC Circuit reached similar conclusions with respect to 
Microsoft's license restrictions that prevented OEMs from using the 
initial boot to prompt users to choose from a list of IAPs (many of 
which at the time used Navigator as the preferred browser);\47\ 
Microsoft's agreements with leading ISVs to use IE as the default 
browser in their applications;\48\ and Microsoft's agreement with 
Apple by which IE would become Apple's default browser.\49\ 
Similarly, the courts found that Microsoft's exclusionary tactics 
directed at Sun's Java served to illegally maintain Microsoft's 
monopoly OS power. For example, with respect to the agreements by 
which the Microsoft JVM would be the ISVs' default JVM, the DC 
Circuit concluded that: the record indicates that Microsoft's deals 
with major ISVs had a significant effect upon [rival] JVM promotion 
. Because Microsoft's agreements foreclosed a substantial portion of 
the field for JVM distribution and because, in so doing, they 
protected Microsoft's monopoly from a middleware threat, they are 
anticompetitive . [W]e hold that the provisions in the First Wave 
Agreements requiring use of Microsoft's JVM as the default are 
exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\The DC Circuit concluded: Microsoft does not deny that the 
prohibition on modifying the boot sequence has the effect of 
decreasing competition against IE by preventing OEMs from promoting 
rivals' browsers. Because this prohibition has a substantial effect 
in protecting Microsoft's market power, and does so through a means 
other than competition on the merits, it is anticompetitive. (253 
F.3d at 62.)
    \48\The DC Circuit observed that: Although the ISVs are a 
relatively small channel for browser distribution, they take on 
greater significance because, as discussed above, Microsoft had 
largely foreclosed the two primary channels to its rivals. In that 
light, one can tell from the record that by affecting the 
applications used by millions' of consumers, Microsoft's exclusive 
deals with the ISVs had a substantial effect in further foreclosing 
rival browsers from the market. [B]y keeping rival browsers from 
gaining widespread distribution (and potentially attracting the 
attention of developers away from the APIs in Windows), the deals 
have a substantial effect in preserving Microsoft's monopoly. (253 
F.3d at 72.)
    \49\The DC Circuit concluded that Because Microsoft's exclusive 
contract with Apple has a substantial effect in restricting 
distribution of rival browsers, and because reducing usage share of 
rival browsers serves to protect Microsoft's monopoly, its deal with 
Apple must be regarded as anticompetitive. (253 F.3d at 73-74.)
    \50\253 F.3d at 75-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC Circuit reached similar conclusions with respect to both 
Microsoft's deception of ISVs regarding the incompatibility of Java 
applications created using Microsoft's Java tools on Sun-compliant 
JVMs\51\ and regarding Microsoft's success in persuading Intel not 
to support the Sun-compliant JVMs.\52\ In sum, Microsoft succeeded 
in foreclosing access by the middleware platforms offered by both 
Navigator and Sun's Java to the most effective means of distributing 
this middleware to consumers, as well as to other distribution 
channels. As a result of this foreclosure, neither middleware would 
develop to its full competitive potential. With respect to the 
effects on Navigator, the CIS summarized the harm in the following 
way:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\Specifically, the DC Circuit concluded that Microsoft's 
conduct related to its Java developer tools served to protect its 
monopoly of the operating system in a manner not attributable either 
to the superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its 
makers, and therefore was anticompetitive. (253 F.3d at 77.)
    \52\The DC Circuit found that Microsoft's internal documents and 
deposition testimony confirm both the anticompetitive effect and 
intent of its actions. (253 F.3d at 77.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's actions succeeded in eliminating the threat that the 
Navigator browser posed to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. 
Foreclosed from effectively using the OEM and IAP distribution 
channels by Microsoft's exclusionary conduct, Navigator was 
relegated to more costly and significantly less effective modes of 
distribution. The adverse business effects of these restrictions 
also deterred Netscape from undertaking technical innovations in 
Navigator that might have attracted consumers and revenues.\53\ 
Similarly, with respect to Java and its distribution via Navigator, 
the CIS concludes: Through its actions against Navigator and Java, 
Microsoft retarded, and perhaps extinguished altogether, the process 
by which these two middleware technologies could have facilitated 
the introduction of competition into the market for Intel-

[[Page 25753]]

compatible personal computer operating systems.\54\

D. Continuing Substantial Harm to Competition and Consumers

    The middleware platforms offered by Navigator and Sun's Java 
were in their nascent stages at the time that Microsoft pursued its 
exclusionary strategy. However, the nascent state of the competitors 
does not make Microsoft's antitrust violations merely technical in 
nature and of no significant long-term consequence. By the same 
token, it would be a mistake to conclude that an appropriate remedy 
could be limited to one that imposes only minor constraints on 
Microsoft's behavior. Such a limited remedy would not repair the 
loss in competition caused by Microsoft's unlawful conduct because 
the harms to competition and consumers were substantial and 
continuing in nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\CIS at 15.
    \54\CIS at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Shifting PC Paradigm Provided the Opportunity for the Emergence 
of New and Substantial Competition

    What is more apparent now than in 1995 is how central the role 
of the Internet would become as an applications platform. During the 
mid-1990s, the maturation of the Internet was beginning to create a 
new paradigm for personal computing that relied on linkages over the 
Internet. The occasion of a paradigm shift represents an opportunity 
for new competition in a market characterized by network effects. We 
know now with much more certainty than even at the closing of the 
trial record that the Internet has transformed PC usage from a solo 
experience one user at one computer, using applications that reside 
on the desktop to an interconnected computer universe, using the 
Internet for both interpersonal communications and for accessing 
applications on the web.\55\ Thus, instead of having all frequently 
used applications resident in the desktop, more and more of those 
applications were developed specifically for the Internet, most 
notably instant messaging, chat rooms, and online shopping, as 
conventional email always has been. In this way, the Internet has 
become the new communications medium, with the computer as the new 
handset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\For example, the District Court found that events, in which 
categories are redefined and leaders are superceded in the process, 
are spoken of as inflection points'The exponential growth of the 
Internet represents an inflection point born of complementary 
technological advances in the computer and telecommunications 
industries. The rise of the Internet in turn has fueled the growth 
of server-based computing, middleware, and open-source software 
development. Working together, these nascent paradigms could oust 
the PC operating system from its position as the primary platform 
for applications development and the main interface between users 
and their computers. Findings of Fact 59-60 (84 F.Supp.2d at 25-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the absence of Microsoft's exclusionary conduct, both 
Netscape Navigator and Sun-compliant Java by now would have 
developed into a widely-used source for cross-platform applications, 
and thus would have spurred far more significant competition with 
Windows. In addition, at least some of the other efforts at the 
development of platform-neutral software would also likely have 
reached competitive significance. These efforts include Intel's 
Native Signal Processor software, whose APIs for enhanced video and 
graphics performance would be exposed by Intel, not Windows;\56\ 
Apples' QuickTime, which offers video and audio playback (among 
other capabilities) for both the Mac OS and Windows;\57\ and Real 
Networks' software, which provides audio and video streaming 
software for multiple platforms.\58\ The loss of competition 
stemming from Microsoft's tactics likely reduced the rate of 
innovation in both operating systems and in web-centric 
applications. But for Microsoft's illegal actions, the paradigm 
shift would likely have occurred more rapidly and completely. As one 
of the Justice Department's remedy experts, Professor Paul Romer, 
observed in his declaration in April 2000:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\Findings of Fact NN95-97 (84 F.Supp.2d at 34).
    \57\Findings of Fact NN104-110 (84 F.Supp.2d at 36-37).
    \58\Findings of Fact NN111-114 (84 F.Supp.2d at 37-38).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is impossible to know with certainty the types of 
applications that might have developed had innovation continued with 
full force on [the Navigator and Java] fronts. We do know, however, 
that some types of applications forecast by the advocates of the 
browser and Java virtual machine are finally emerging. For example, 
companies are only now bringing to market server-based applications 
accessed via a browser that substitute for traditional desktop 
productivity applications.\59\ Netscape Navigator and Sun's Java 
were at the center of the new computing paradigm. They had the 
opportunity to create momentum for a competitive process that would 
breakdown the applications barrier to entry and Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly. By eliminating the threats of both 
Navigator and Sun's Java, Microsoft maintained its Windows monopoly. 
The browser war is now over and Microsoft won as a result of its 
illegal conduct. Netscape is no longer any significant part of the 
market landscape and Internet Explorer has a virtual lock on the 
market.\60\ By eliminating Netscape as a middleware threat and 
platform for the development of web-based applications, Microsoft 
thereby extended Microsoft's power and control into Internet 
applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\Romer Declaration N11.
    \60\The DC Circuit did not find this process of achieving any 
power or control in browsers to be a separate and independent 
antitrust offense. However, this dominance clearly flows from the 
same conduct that was found to illegally maintain Microsoft's 
desktop operating system monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, Sun's Java has lost its momentum from Microsoft's 
polluted Java and will not be able to reestablish its position by 
itself even after Microsoft stops its anticompetitive campaign.\61\ 
This is because ISVs that have invested in developing expertise in 
the use of Microsoft's Java tools have become locked-in and now face 
substantial costs of switching to Sun's Java tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\This, of course, suggests that any effective remedy should 
if possible restore Sun-compliant Java to the prominence it would 
have attained absent Microsoft's illegal conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the Real Networks and the QuickTime applications have 
never developed into the middleware opportunity that appeared likely 
in the mid-1990s. They have lost their lead and are now fighting for 
survival, while Microsoft has gained control over the multimedia 
platform through Windows Media Player.
    Finally, in operating systems, the Mac OS and Linux OS continue 
to occupy a niche position while OS/2 is virtually non-existent. It 
is true that the Linux OS has made significant inroads into the 
server market where professional, technically savvy users are 
important in buying and using the product. But Microsoft's OS 
dominance in the desktop PC market continues and is not threatened 
by Linux, which is an open source, or non-proprietary product.
    As one of Microsoft's consultants has explained: Although 
experience suggests that surprises are possible, open source does 
not seem a viable model for producing mass-market software . . . 
Linux doesn't have a standard easy-to-use graphical interface. And 
it can't boast of many high-quality, user-friendly applications that 
appeal to mass-market users.\62\ In short, for Linux, too, the 
applications barrier to entry into the mass-market for PCs is simply 
too high to pose any real threat to Microsoft's dominance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\David S. Evans, Is Free Software the Wave of the Future?, 
THE MILKEN INSTITUTE REVIEW, Fourth Quarter 2001, p. 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Opportunity for the Emergence of New Competition Was Substantial 
and Its Loss Was Due to Microsoft's Exclusionary Actions

    The evidence that, but for Microsoft's exclusionary actions, the 
competition to Microsoft would have been much more substantial than 
it is today, can be found in the fears that Microsoft itself 
expressed in the numerous memoranda and emails that are part of the 
trial record-- frequently cited by the District Court in its 
Findings of Fact and by the DC Circuit. For example, in a 1995 
memorandum to his staff, Bill Gates expressed his concern that 
Netscape was pursuing a multi-platform strategy where they move the 
key API into the client to commoditize the underlying operating 
system.\63\ Further, as Microsoft executive Ben Slivka explained in 
his deposition,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\Findings of Fact N72 (84 F.Supp.2d at 29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So the point is not that the little Web browser, you know, 
whether it was Navigator 1 or Navigator 2 or Navigator 3, the point 
was not that that thing by itself as it stood then would immediately 
kill Windows. That wasn't the point. The point was that that thing 
could grow and blossom and provide an application development 
platform which was more popular than Windows.\64\ Indeed, the 
central purpose of Microsoft's actions was to divert enough browser 
usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\Benjamin Slivka 9/3/98 Dep. Tr. 252-253, cited in Direct 
Testimony of Franklin M. Fisher at 40-41.
    \65\Findings of Fact N143 (84 F.Supp.2d at 46), cited by the DC 
Circuit (253 F.3d at 71).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In terms of how to deal with the Netscape threat, senior 
Microsoft executives made it clear that but for radical exclusionary 
action,

[[Page 25754]]

IE would not succeed in eliminating Netscape and that as a result, 
Netscape would be a potent competitive constraint. For example, 
Judge Jackson cited the following statement by Microsoft executive 
James Alchin: I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current 
path is simply to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and 
product wise. Let's [suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/
Communicator. Who wins? The one with 80% market share. Maybe being 
free helps us, but once people are used to a product it is hard to 
change them. Consider Office. We are more expensive today and we're 
still winning. My conclusion is that we must leverage Windows more.
    Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows which is cross-platform 
[means] losing our biggest advantage Windows marketshare. We should 
dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows 
technically more. . . . We should think about an integrated solution 
that is our strength.\66\ Similarly, Microsoft had clearly evidenced 
comparable concerns with respect to the threat that Sun's Java posed 
to Microsoft's OS dominance. For example, Microsoft believed that it 
had to fundamentally blunt Java/AWT momentum so as to protect our 
core asset Windows.\67\ Indeed, the now-famous Microsoft document 
made clear the substantial competitive threat that Microsoft 
perceived Java to be: Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the 
polluted Java.\68\ Microsoft also made this position clear to 
Intel.\69\ The competitive importance of Java was also described 
clearly in an article appearing in the November 1996 edition of 
Fortune:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\Findings of Fact N166 (84 F.Supp.2d at 51).
    \67\6/20/96 re windows and internet issues, Paul Maritz to Brad 
Silverberg et al.: Pl. Ex. 42, at MS6 6010347.
    \68\GX 259, cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 76-77).
    \69\As stated by Judge Jackson, in November 1995, Microsoft's 
Paul Maritz told a senior Intel executive that Intel's [adaptation 
of its multimedia software to comply with] Sun's Java standards was 
as inimical to Microsoft as Microsoft's support for non-Intel 
microprocessors would be to Intel. Findings of Fact N405 (84 
F.Supp.2d at 109- 110), cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To Microsoft's dismay, [Java] is fast becoming what is known as 
a computing platform a sturdy base upon which programmers can build 
software applications Java programs, once written, can run without 
modification on just about any kind of computer: a PC, a Macintosh, 
a Unix workstation heck, even a mainframe. The underlying operating 
system makes no difference. In scarcely a year, Java has evolved 
into a major challenger to Microsoft's Windows family of PC 
operating systems faster even than DOS and Windows rose to challenge 
traditional mainframes and minicomputers. Java is also well on its 
way to becoming the most important Internet software standard, 
catapulting Sun past Netscape and Microsoft as the leader in 
Internet computing.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\Sun's Java: The Threat to Microsoft is Real, Fortune, 
November 11, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Findings of Fact make clear that Microsoft both recognized 
and was deeply worried about the threats from both Java and 
Netscape.\71\ The court wrote: The combined efforts of Netscape and 
Sun threatened to hasten the demise of the applications barrier to 
entry, opening the way for non-Microsoft operating systems to emerge 
as acceptable substitutes for Windows. By stimulating the 
development of network-centric Java applications accessible to users 
through browser products, the collaboration of Netscape and Sun also 
heralded the day when vendors of information appliances and network 
computers could present users with viable alternatives to PCs 
themselves. Decision-makers at Microsoft are apprehensive of 
potential as well as present threats, though, and in 1995 the 
implications of the symbiosis between Navigator and Sun's Java 
implementation were not lost on executives at Microsoft, who viewed 
Netscape's cooperation with Sun as a further reason to dread the 
increasing use of Navigator.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\Findings of Fact 72 (84 F.Supp.2d at 29) (referencing Gates' 
Internet Tidal Wave memo), 77 (id. at 30).
    \72\Findings of Fact 77 (84 F.Supp.2d at 30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Conclusion

    Taking Microsoft's own fears at its word, the court should not 
assume that Microsoft's illegal conduct failed to have its intended 
significant effects on competition. Instead, the courts should take 
Microsoft's own contemporaneous views for what they were: fears that 
these nascent competitors would have led to significant market 
competition today.

E. More Entrenched Microsoft Monopoly

    Paradigm shifts in computing are not events that occur with 
great frequency. Indeed, only three significant shifts have occurred 
in the history of the PC industry: the shift from mainframes to PCs; 
the shift from a text-based to a graphical interface; and the 
current, nearly completed shift from the use of the PC as a single-
user experience to the increasing reliance on the Internet for 
applications and communications. Microsoft relied on an exclusionary 
strategy to protect its monopoly power from the competition that 
would have been spawned by the paradigm shift. But now, Netscape has 
lost its window of opportunity to take advantage of this latest 
paradigm shift and Java has been neutralized. This middleware has 
been supplanted by Microsoft's own offerings. By carrying out its 
exclusionary strategy, Microsoft effectively destroyed the 
opportunity for these middleware competitors to overcome the 
applications barrier, competitors that Microsoft clearly viewed as a 
substantial threat to its OS monopoly power. Instead of consumers 
benefiting from the growing competition over the past five years, 
Microsoft has used the past five years to entrench the monopoly 
power of the Windows operating system and gain greater control over 
computing in the new Internet paradigm. Thus, the opportunity for 
new competition has been lost. Creating competition in the next 
paradigm shift will be even harder.
    In just the past few months, Microsoft has introduced Windows 
XP, which has technologically bound key Internet-gateway 
applications such as Windows Media Player to the operating system 
and its various browsers. In this way, Microsoft discourages 
software developers from writing their programs to competing 
middleware platforms. This also makes it harder for operating system 
competition to emerge.
    As Microsoft's monopoly has become more entrenched, no 
alternative middleware threat has yet emerged that can match the 
significance of the threat posed by Navigator and Sun's Java in 
1995. And overcoming the applications barrier to entry will be even 
harder for the next middleware threat. Microsoft now controls APIs 
and other standards, applications and platforms in browsing, Java 
and multimedia. This more pervasive control by Microsoft over these 
platforms means that independent software developers are even less 
likely to write to non- Microsoft platforms. A new platform entrant 
must now be able to overcome an applications barrier for these 
additional applications as part of the process of overcoming the 
applications barrier for the desktop OS.
    Microsoft also has cemented its dominant desktop OS monopoly 
with the development of the Windows CE operating system for handheld 
devices as well as its increased share of OS server sales. While 
this power was not alleged in the government's complaint or found to 
be illegal, Microsoft's own offerings clearly have benefited from 
the illegal entrenchment of its desktop monopoly. Thus, a new 
platform entrant must not only overcome the application advantages 
that Microsoft illegally obtained in the desk top OS and extended to 
Internet applications, it must also provide compatibility with the 
handheld computers, which are rapidly gaining in popularity, and 
with servers which are increasingly relying on Microsoft's server 
operating systems.
    Moreover, Microsoft has sent a clear and unambiguous signal by 
its conduct to would-be OS and cross-platform developers. As Dr. 
Romer explained: In the browser wars, Microsoft showed that it had 
the power to reduce the return Netscape and Sun earned on their 
investments in innovative technologies and that it was willing to 
use this power. This reduces the expected profits that outside 
innovators can expect to earn from developing technologies that 
threaten to create additional competition for Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly.\73\ Thus, any developer of a credible means of 
providing applications interoperability across different operating 
systems must surely expect that Microsoft will use the same kind of 
swift, broad, and persistent exclusionary tactics to eliminate such 
a competitive threat to its OS. Similarly, any OEM, IAP, and ISV 
will consider Microsoft's likely reaction if they were to distribute 
or use any middleware with the potential to undermine Microsoft's 
monopoly power. In this way, the effect of Microsoft's actions has 
been to raise the applications barrier to entry by increasing the 
risk of investing in cross-platform initiatives. As a consequence, 
the immediate effects from Microsoft's foreclosure strategy will 
cast a long shadow into the future. After all, there

[[Page 25755]]

is now no rival to Microsoft that poses a competitive threat to 
Microsoft that is comparable to threat that had been posed to 
Microsoft by Navigator and Sun's Java. Developments such as the 
roll-out of Microsoft's XP, which bundles productivity applications 
on the Internet with the operating system, raise the prospect viewed 
as nearly a fait accompli in some quarters that Microsoft is 
leveraging its PC OS monopoly power into the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\Romer Declaration 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, Microsoft's OS is today considerably more 
protected from the threat of entry than was true in 1995, because 
Microsoft has been able to eliminate all threats with seeming 
impunity. As we subsequently conclude, the weaknesses in the RPFJ 
are so substantial that if adopted, the RPFJ may encourage Microsoft 
to become even more aggressive in its anticompetitive behavior. Both 
Microsoft and any potential threats to Microsoft's market power will 
recognize that the penalty for Microsoft's antitrust transgressions 
is far less than what was likely expected prior to the RPFJ. As a 
result, with a lower expected penalty, Microsoft will find it 
profitable to adopt some anticompetitive strategies that prior to 
the adoption of this RPFJ it would have not viewed as profitable.

III. Remedy and Enforcement Principles

    In this section, we describe the goals that a remedy in this 
matter should attain and the enforcement principles required to 
implement the remedy in a way that serves the public interest. Our 
review of the relevant literature indicates that the relief phase of 
antitrust cases is often treated as an afterthought, even in cases 
as important as monopolization findings under Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act. For example, Professor Lawrence Sullivan has observed: 
Perhaps the best hope is that, hereafter, courts facing structural 
remedy issues will get more help than they have customarily received 
from the Department of Justice. As Judge Wyzanski implied in United 
Shoe Machinery, the government is sometimes extremely casual about 
remedy.\74\ A similar point of view has been voiced by Chief Judge 
Richard Posner (who attempted to mediate a settlement in this case):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\Lawrence Anthony Sullivan, Handbook of the Law of Antitrust, 
West (1977) at 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another reason for the poor record of divestiture as an 
antitrust remedy is that the government's lawyers tend to lose 
interest in a case at the relief stage. They derive both personal 
satisfaction and career advancement from the trial of an antitrust 
case, but gain neither from the post-trial relief negotiations and 
proceedings, which they frequently tend to pay scant attention.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\Richard Posner, Antitrust: An Economic Perspective, 
University of Chicago Press (1978) at 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our experience, when similar issues arise outside antitrust, 
even in situations with far less significant potential economic 
consequences, agencies charged with making these determinations (in 
rulemaking contexts, for example) generally do so only after 
extensive fact-finding and, in some cases, hearings.
    The public interest would best be served by a similar remedy 
proceeding in this matter before any final decisions regarding 
settlement are reached. This hearing should be expedited in light of 
the urgency and rapid pace of change in the industry. A fact-finding 
process aimed at resolving the many complex issues in this matter is 
far more likely to result in a resolution that advances the 
interests of consumers than is a brief Tunney Act proceeding. If the 
court does not reject the RPFJ outright, we would urge the court to 
postpone the ruling now and modify the remedy after further evidence 
is offered during the next phase of the litigation. Thus, we 
certainly agree with the decision by the court to (in effect) use 
the upcoming remedy hearings on the proposal of the Litigating 
States to evaluate the RPFJ in tandem. This remedial hearing will be 
vital to assess the loss of competition cause by Microsoft's illegal 
exclusionary conduct. Comparing these two remedial proposals using 
the evidence gathered on the loss of competition during the court's 
assessment of the LS proposal will better enable the court to choose 
a remedy commensurate with the competitive harm.
    In this section, we elaborate on the proper remedial goals and 
enforcement principles of an effective antitrust remedy. In the next 
two sections, we explain why the proposed RPFJ fails to attain these 
goals. We then discuss more effective, alternative remedies.

A. General Remedial Goals

    The court has a deceptively simply task at this point in this 
hallmark litigation: to decide whether the settlement reached 
between Microsoft, the Department of Justice and nine of the state 
plaintiffs is in the public interest, as that term is used in the 
Tunney Act, which governs this particular phase of the proceedings. 
We say deceptively simple because it is tempting to apply the 
standard for defining what is in the public interest that was 
announced by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia when 
it considered the 1994 consent decree reached between Microsoft and 
the Department: whether the decree stopped the practices alleged in 
the complaint brought by the government. United States v. Microsoft 
Corp., 56 F. 3d 1448 (DC Cir. 1995).
    However, such a standard is clearly inappropriate at the current 
point in this proceeding, for a very simple reason: a lower court 
has found, and an appellate court has affirmed, that Microsoft has 
engaged in a series of significant violations of the antitrust laws 
aimed at entrenching its OS monopoly and thwarting effective 
competition to it. The appropriate test therefore should be much 
stronger than in a typical Tunney Act proceeding.
    The remedy clearly must halt all the practices the courts (in 
this case both the trial and appellate courts) have condemned as 
violations. But, in this matter, the test must be even broader than 
that. Now that the case has been adjudicated to a verdict, the 
public interest standard should be no different than the standard 
the courts would apply to any remedy that would be appropriate in an 
antitrust case. As the appellate court in this case made clear, that 
standard has been set forth by the Supreme Court in United Shoe: a 
remedy must not only unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct 
but also must 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. Ford 
Motor Co., 405 U.S. at 577 and United Shoe, 391 U.S. at 250.
    Applied to this case, these principles suggest that an effective 
remedy should accomplish the following. First, the remedy should 
terminate the conduct that the court has found to violate the 
antitrust laws. Second, the remedy should within a short period 
introduce competition into the operating system market. The key to 
the success of this goal will be the effectiveness of the remedy in 
reducing the applications barrier to entry as a means of 
establishing economic conditions most conducive to competition for 
operating systems. Third, the remedy should reduce the ability of 
Microsoft to project its current monopoly power into other markets, 
as a way of inhibiting Microsoft from reinforcing its monopoly in 
operating systems.

1. Terminating the Illegal Conduct

    Any final remedy, whether a consent decree or a court-imposed 
judgment, should terminate all of the conduct found to be 
anticompetitive, and should prohibit such conduct in the future. In 
this regard, the decree should cover all of the conduct found by the 
court to be illegal. It should also be as specific as possible in 
describing the kinds of conduct that are enjoined. As discussed 
further below, the consent decree should provide effective 
incentives to comply with these conduct prohibitions. Finally, the 
decree should seek to avoid creating loopholes by which the 
defendant can maintain its monopoly through alternative means of 
exclusionary behavior.

2. Restoring Competition to the Level that Would Exist Today, But for 
Microsoft's Exclusionary Behavior

    The consent decree ought to terminate the illegally maintained 
monopoly by restoring competition. Specifically, the decree should 
repair the loss of competition caused by Microsoft's unlawful 
anticompetitive conduct to destroy the middleware threat caused by 
Netscape and Java. The courts already have found in clear and 
convincing terms that Microsoft's conduct helped it to maintain its 
operating system monopoly. The consent decree should seek to restore 
the market to the competitive trajectory that it would have reached 
by now, had the illegal conduct never occurred.
    This outcome demands more than simply requiring Microsoft's 
future conduct to comply with the antitrust laws. The central theme 
running through the trial court's Findings of Fact is that 
Microsoft's acts have chilled innovation and have therefore 
distorted the evolution of the software market. While history cannot 
be rewritten and the world has lost several years of increased 
competition in operating systems, an appropriate remedy can provide 
future innovation opportunities to current and would-be entrants. 
Adapting the court's own language, if one object of the remedy is to 
restore competition in the markets in which Microsoft competes, 
Microsoft's oppressive thumb cannot be effectively removed unless

[[Page 25756]]

the scales of competitive fortune are themselves rebalanced.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\Conclusions of Law at 44 (87 F.Supp.2d at 44), cited by the 
DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In dynamic markets that are subject to network effects, such 
rebalancing will be required because competition does not 
automatically or instantly spring back to life when exclusionary 
conduct is ended. Network effects make monopolies durable. Microsoft 
will continue to enjoy significant monopoly power even if its 
illegal exclusionary conduct is stopped. Entry by new firms that 
once might have been possible may be no longer possible, even if 
additional exclusionary conduct is prohibited. Thus, an effective 
decree should seek to repair the loss in competition and jump-start 
the competitive process. The most straightforward and effective 
method of helping to repair the loss in competition in this matter 
is to craft a remedy (such as the full divestiture remedy described 
below) that directly and immediately creates the OS competition 
foregone as a consequence of Microsoft's illegal behavior. While 
more uncertain as to the ultimate effect, any other remedy should 
sufficiently reduce the applications barrier to entry (that the 
court found helped Microsoft maintain its monopoly) to enable the 
restoration of the lost competition. The middleware threat by 
Netscape and Java were on track to reduce the applications barrier 
to entry. Microsoft's panoply of unlawful conduct halted this 
growing competitive process in its infancy. Thus, an antitrust 
decree should either directly create the lost OS competition or 
contain specific provisions that enable applications vendors and 
potential platform competitors to surmount the applications barrier 
to entry that will continue to protect Microsoft's monopoly even 
after exclusionary conduct has been terminated. It should also 
attempt to recreate the strong independent middleware platform that 
would have been achieved by now in the absence of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct over the past six years.

3. Deterring the Recurrence of Monopoly through Future Anticompetitive 
Conduct

    The consent decree also should deter continued or additional 
anticompetitive conduct that might allow the monopoly to recur. In 
this case, the condemned conduct included a variety of exclusionary 
behavior. It is insufficient simply to prohibit the continuation of 
this specific exclusionary behavior without also mandating penalties 
for new kinds of exclusionary behavior that the defendant might 
substitute for the conduct that is enjoined. Otherwise, the 
defendant is only encouraged to find alternative means of exercising 
its monopoly power. This remedial goal 37 should be of particular 
concern in this case because Microsoft has shown a willingness and 
ability to exploit poorly crafted decrees.
    In evaluating whether the consent decree serves the public 
interest, the court should be mindful of factors that will tend to 
make poorly crafted conduct restrictions ineffective. For example, 
there is an asymmetry of knowledge between the courts and the 
defendant. Courts do not have perfect information, and are likely to 
have incomplete knowledge and observation of Microsoft's conduct. As 
a result, all conduct compliance issues will require extensive 
investigation by the courts, if the conduct decree is vaguely 
crafted. In addition, there are delays in enforcement. And Microsoft 
has displayed a continuing pattern of the same exclusionary conduct. 
For example, Windows XP is more tightly integrated than any other 
previous version of the Windows operating system. Given these 
realities, a simple injunction that merely prohibits the repeating 
of past conduct clearly would be insufficient.

 B. Enforcement Principles

    Whatever the exact provisions of a consent decree, it must be 
enforceable if it is to be effective in achieving any objectives 
that the court deems appropriate. An enforceable decree is one for 
which violations of the decree are quickly and easily detectable, 
and for which the penalties for violation provide sufficient 
incentives for the defendant to remain fully compliant. If the 
decree is not so enforceable, it will not attain any of the three 
goals described above. The principle of quick and easy detection of 
decree violations requires that the consent decree have specific 
prohibitions. It must set clear and easily observed boundaries for 
impermissible conduct. A conduct decree that merely restates the 
antitrust rule of reason does not satisfy this principle.
    The principle of enforceability also requires that the consent 
decree provide for specific and sufficient punishment for 
violations. A defendant may rationally choose to violate a consent 
decree, and would do so whenever the expected profits from doing so 
exceed the expected penalties. The expected penalties take into 
account both the probability of detection as well as the severity of 
the penalty in the event of detection. In order for these penalties 
to have deterrence value, they must be equal to or greater than the 
substantial benefit to the defendant of continued violations.
    Enforceability also involves a time dimension. A defendant's 
decision calculus rationally takes into account the expected timing 
of both the profits and the penalties. This means that enforcement 
must occur rapidly, lest the defendant reap all of the benefits of 
the violation before it is stopped. This issue is a particular 
concern in a market like this one that is subject to rapid 
technological change and network effects. In this type of market, 
opportunities for meaningful competition to emerge may be sporadic. 
For example, if an entrant were destroyed as a change in technology 
was occurring, that opportunity for new competition might not 
reoccur once the paradigm shift was completed. Also, in markets 
where network effects are strong, monopolies tend to be entrenched 
and durable. This places a premium on swift enforcement. In 
addition, an effective consent decree should take into account the 
fact that the remedy in this case will affect deterrence of 
anticompetitive conduct in related markets, and even in unrelated 
markets. This case will set a precedent for the consequences of 
anticompetitive behavior in technology-driven industries. The 
consent decree will send a message to other potential antitrust 
offenders. If the decree is a full and effective remedy, that 
message will be that there is no profit in violating the antitrust 
laws.

C. Implications for Evaluation of the RPFJ

    These remedial and enforcement principles can be used to 
evaluate the RPFJ. They imply three serious flaws in the RPFJ.
    First, the RPFJ is flawed because it does not even achieve the 
limited remedial goal it sets out for itself. The RPFJ is riddled 
with exceptions and loopholes that will prevent the middleware 
threat from becoming reestablished. It does not cover all the 
conduct that was found to be unlawful by the DC Circuit. It also 
ignores the market impact of Microsoft's illegal conduct. Having 
neutralized the middleware threat it faced from Netscape and Java, 
Microsoft has maintained its control over the course of the paradigm 
shift in computing, a time when the opportunities for new entry 
would otherwise be expected to be enlarged. There are no equally 
powerful middleware threats today to replace the ones that have been 
neutralized. Second, the RPFJ is flawed because it contains a 
defective enforcement mechanism. The RPFJ will be difficult to 
enforce in a timely manner and the penalty for non-compliance is 
weak. Therefore, the RPFJ will not deter future anticompetitive 
conduct by Microsoft. Third, the RPFJ is flawed because it is 
premised on improper remedial goals. The stated goal of the RPFJ is 
to ``restore the competitive threat that middleware products posed 
prior to Microsoft's unlawful undertakings.'' (CIS at 3.) Instead, 
the proper goal should be to restore competition to the level that 
would have been achieved today in the absence of Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct. This goal is needed to terminate the unlawful 
monopoly, restore competition, and achieve real deterrence in the 
future.
    We discuss these flaws next. Section IV analyzes the flaws in 
the context of the DOJO's own remedial standard and the associated 
defects in the enforcement mechanism. Section V then explains why 
DOJO's remedial standard is flawed and much too limited given the 
current status of this particular case. Section VI then discusses 
alternative, more effective remedies.

IV. The RPFJ Fails Under DOJO's Own Remedial Test

    The DOJO's CIS claims that its RPFJ will restore competitive 
conditions to the market and will restore the competitive threat 
that middleware products posed prior to Microsoft's unlawful 
undertakings.\77\ The DOJ argues that 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.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\CIS at 3.
    \78\CIS at 24. 41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Simply restoring competition to its condition prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct is too limited a goal. The proper 
benchmark should be to achieve the level of

[[Page 25757]]

competition that would exist today but for Microsoft's illegal 
conduct. But even if the DOJ's goal were appropriate, the RPFJ still 
fails to satisfy even the low standard the DOJ has used. The CIS 
also fails to acknowledge that its goal is more difficult to attain 
today than it was in 1995 because Microsoft's illegal exclusionary 
behavior has substantially increased the applications barrier to 
entry. Moreover, even assuming counterfactually that market 
conditions today were basically the same as they were in 1995, the 
RPFJ does not restore the competitive threat that middleware 
products such as Netscape and Java represented in 1995 prior to 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct. Thus, the RPFJ fails to meet either 
the DOJ's own standard or the more appropriate remedial standard we 
outline later in this Comment.
    As we observed in Section II, the computing industry in 1995 was 
in the process of shifting towards Internet-based computing and web-
centric applications. At that time, OS entrants plausibly could have 
overcome network effects to create new competition in this market 
because the Internet has begun to render the desktop OS less 
important to users. Navigator and Sun's Java were at the center of 
this transformation, permitting users to easily access the Internet 
and Internet applications, while allowing ISVs to more easily write 
Internet applications. Through its unlawful conduct, Microsoft 
succeeded in neutralizing these competitive threats to its OS 
monopoly power. Netscape Navigator has all but been eliminated as a 
competitive browser. Sun's original plan for Java as the means for 
providing a platform to write applications for many operating 
systems was undercut by Microsoft's unlawful actions that succeeded 
in converting the version of Java that applications programmers use 
to a proprietary Microsoft platform.
    The shift toward the Internet is now virtually complete, but 
rather than witnessing a corresponding shift to a more competitive 
landscape, Microsoft has succeeded in entrenching its OS monopoly 
power and extending its dominance to the Internet. In particular, 
Microsoft now controls APIs and other standards, applications and 
platforms in browsing, Java and multimedia. Web content and other 
web-based applications are now optimized for IE. In addition, 
contrary to the claims made by Microsoft at trial, there still is no 
meaningful competition for operating systems for desktop PCs.
    Microsoft's more pervasive control over these various platforms 
means that independent software developers are even less likely to 
write to non-Microsoft platforms than was the case when the DOJ's 
case was launched. There is now no new Navigator or Java to 
challenge Microsoft's control. A new platform entrant must now be 
able to overcome an applications barrier for these additional 
applications as part of the process of overcoming the applications 
barrier for the desktop OS. Thus, the applications barrier to entry 
is higher now than it was before. As a result, the market landscape 
today is less favorable to competition than it was in 1995 prior to 
Microsoft's illegal conduct.
    Thus, an effective remedy under the DOJO's standard would be one 
that is potent enough to enable OS competition in the face of this 
higher applications barrier, thereby restoring competition to its 
1995 level. However, the RPFJ is not nearly so potent. First, the 
RPFJ does not enjoin all of the conduct that the court found to be 
in violation of the antitrust laws. Second, the RPFJ contains 
numerous loopholes and exceptions that render it ineffective. Third, 
the enforcement mechanism in the RPFJ is very weak and so will not 
deter further anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. As a result, the 
RPFJ will not and cannot even revive the competition to that level 
which existed in 1995.

A. The RPFJ Does Not Prohibit All Unlawful Conduct

    The DC Circuit clearly held that Microsoft's integration of 
middleware into the operating system by commingling of code for 
Internet Explorer and Windows was anticompetitive. Indeed, when 
Microsoft subsequently asked the DC Circuit whether, in effect, a 
sufficient remedy to the commingling could be met by allowing OEMs 
to remove the relevant icons, the Court denied Microsoft's 
clarification request in a per curiam order, noting in particular 
that [n]othing in the Court's opinion is intended to preclude the 
District Court's consideration of remedy issues.\79\ Yet, the RPFJ 
does not remedy in any way this exclusionary conduct. In particular, 
the RPFJ contains no prohibition on commingling of code and no 
requirement that Microsoft offer versions of its operating system 
that do not commingle middleware and applications code. As a result, 
the RPFJ does not reduce the applications barrier to entry and thus 
cannot even return the state of the middleware competition back to 
where it was in 1995, let alone implement the competition that would 
have emerged in the absence of Microsoft's unlawful conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\Order, supra at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court also held that Microsoft's deception of ISVs by making 
its Java tools incompatible with Sun's Java was anticompetitive. 
This deception caused ISVs to become locked-in to using Microsoft's 
Java tools and helped to neutralize Sun's momentum with Java. Again, 
the RPFJ does nothing to remedy this harm.
    The failure of the RPFJ to prohibit Microsoft from binding 
Internet Explorer or other middleware such as Windows Media Player 
and Microsoft Messenger to the Windows operating system is 
especially noteworthy because it is in direct conflict with the 
findings of the Court of Appeals. In its opinion, the DC Circuit 
stated that the technical integration decisions of a monopolist are 
subject to the antitrust oversight.\80\ It also found that 
Microsoft's technological integration of Internet Explorer into 
Windows violated the antitrust laws by commingling the code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\Judicial deference to product innovation, however, does not 
mean that a monopolist's product design decisions are per se lawful. 
(253 F.3d at 65.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Yet, despite these clear signals from the DC Circuit, the 
Department's proposed remedy does not follow the court, but instead 
takes the opposite position. First, the definition of the operating 
system in Section VI.U. explicitly states that the software code 
that constitutes the operating system shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion. This explicitly exempts all future 
commingling of code and other forms of technological integration 
from oversight under the RPFJ. Thus, Microsoft can evade all 
restrictions on middleware simply by embedding the code in the 
operating system. Second, the RPFJ does not require separation of 
the operating system from middleware code, but instead only requires 
that Microsoft permit OEMs to hide end user access to the middleware 
on the desktop. And, as discussed below, even this condition is 
subject to a number of significant loopholes.
    The Senate testimony of Charles James contains no explanation of 
why the Department's approach is contrary to the Appeal Court 
findings. Indeed, Mr. James did not even include this commingling of 
code as one of the claims upheld by the Court of Appeals. He 
mentioned only the prohibitions on removing the Microsoft icons from 
the desktop.\81\ Thus, he essentially adopted Microsoft's view in 
its clarification petition, not the response rejecting it by the 
Court of Appeals. In light of the DC Circuit's strong statement in 
response to Microsoft's petition, the failure to include a 
commingling provision in the RPFJ is inexplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\Statement of Charles James to Committee of the Judiciary 
(United States Senate), supra at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The absence of any prohibition on binding middleware 
applications to the operating system is a fatal defect of the RPFJ. 
The ability to bind middleware programs to the operating system 
gives Microsoft universal distribution of its middleware products. 
Microsoft can ensure that a copy of its middleware is distributed 
with every copy of the Windows monopoly operating system.
    The universal distribution by Microsoft of its middleware is 
something that no other competitor will have or could hope to 
achieve. The importance of Microsoft's unlawful acts that gave it 
dominance in middleware is that middleware competitors can expect to 
acquire at most partial distribution while Microsoft gets universal 
distribution. As a result, the RPFJ will not lower or remove the 
applications barrier to entry that protects Microsoft's OS monopoly. 
ISVs that write applications to the exposed APIs of middleware 
programs will continue to have the incentive to write first, and in 
most cases only, to the Microsoft middleware program that is 
commingled with the operating system that they know is installed on 
virtually every PC that is manufactured, even if end users or OEMs 
chose to remove Microsoft's desktop icon and direct end user access. 
In contrast, the benefits of writing to any other middleware are 
significantly lower, since no other middleware will ever gain 
universal distribution. Thus, the RPFJ will not reduce the 
applications barrier to entry.
    Further, as found by the DC Circuit, OEMs have a very weak 
incentive to license and install a second version of a middleware 
program that already is included by

[[Page 25758]]

Microsoft.\82\ As discussed in Section II, this is because the 
additional customer support costs would be substantial. This was one 
of the reasons that Microsoft's conduct had an anticompetitive 
effect even though OEMs were free to license and install Netscape's 
web browser OEMs did not want to support two web browsers. These 
support costs will exist even if the Microsoft icons are hidden 
because the Microsoft middleware nonetheless will continue to be 
invoked by applications under some circumstances (RPFJ, Section 
III.H.) and even if the end user does not realize that it is 
installed. Thus, hiding the Microsoft icon does not eliminate the 
need for the OEM to support the Microsoft middleware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\Findings of Fact 159, 210, (84 F.Supp.2d at 49-50, 60-61), 
cited by the DC Circuit (253 F.3d at 61).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that competing middleware products can try to convince 
OEMs to carry their products and OEMs can change defaults or hide 
the Microsoft middleware icons from end users does not reduce the 
applications barrier to entry. Hiding the middleware icons is not 
the same as removing the code and the RPFJ allows Microsoft to 
encourage users to change the default back to the Microsoft 
middleware. In particular, the RPFJ allows Microsoft after 14 days 
to continually and automatically (with its desktop sweeper) attempt 
to persuade end users to revert back to Microsoft middleware that 
has been replaced by a third-party application. (RPFJ, Section 
III.H.3.) This raises the probability that a significant number of 
users will switch to the Microsoft middleware, even if just to get 
rid of an annoying reminder. This further diminishes the incentives 
of rival middleware producers to pay OEMs to carry their products 
and ISVs to write for middleware programs that compete with 
Microsoft middleware products.
    The incentive to carry a second middleware application is 
further reduced because there are not now, and are unlikely to be in 
the future, applications with which non-Microsoft middleware 
interoperates. This is simply the chicken-and-egg applications 
barrier to entry all over again. It will ensure that Microsoft 
maintains its monopoly, and will continue to allow Microsoft to 
leverage its dominance into middleware markets such as media players 
and instant messaging. This means that the applications barrier to 
entry will not be reduced by the RPFJ. Two other aspects of the RPFJ 
also are relevant to the gauging the effect of the RPFJ's failure to 
proscribe commingling on maintaining the applications barrier to 
entry. As will be discussed in more detail in Section IV.B. below, 
there are significant limitations on the middleware ``protections'' 
in the RPFJ. One drawback particularly relevant to the need for a 
commingling prohibition is the fact that the middleware icon 
provisions only apply when Microsoft has a competing product. (RPFJ, 
Section II.C.1. and C.3.). For example, suppose that a competitor 
creates new voice recognition middleware well before Microsoft. To 
delay this program from becoming a ubiquitous middleware platform 
until it gets its own product established (and bundled into the 
operating system), Microsoft can limit the ability of OEMs to 
display the competitor's icon or automatically launch the 
competitor's program, thereby preventing a competitor from getting a 
headstart.\83\ Again, this flawed provision will make it harder for 
rival middleware to overcome the applications barrier to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\Of course, the other exclusions discussed later on that 
limit the middleware that is ``protected'' also help maintain the 
applications barrier to entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, there is a timing issue. Section III.H. of the RPFJ 
allows Microsoft to delay for twelve months the technical changes to 
Windows required to provide the OEMs with the ability to remove the 
icons or automatic invocation of Microsoft middleware. Our 
understanding is that such changes can occur much more rapidly than 
this. Thus, this provision simply provides Microsoft with even more 
time to cement its control over the OS. This will lead to ISVs 
having an even greater incentive to write applications to Microsoft 
middleware. This outcome will further reinforce the applications 
barrier to entry, yet another reason why the RPFJ is not in the 
public interest.

B. The RPFJ Contains Numerous Other Exceptions and Loopholes

    The RPFJ is also shot through with exceptions and loopholes that 
limit its value even for those unlawful actions that the RPFJ does 
address. First, many of the prohibitions contain general language 
that reduces the provisions to nothing more than a general 
restatement of antitrust law. These exceptions obviously make the 
provisions difficult to enforce in a timely fashion. Second, the 
definitions and qualifications limit the scope of the coverage of 
the prohibitions and open up significant loopholes in the proposed 
decree. For these reasons, the RPFJ will not stop the violations and 
so is not in the public interest.

1. The RPFJ's Test of Reasonableness

    Various prohibitions in the RPFJ include exceptions that permit 
Microsoft to carry out the conduct if it meets a test of 
reasonableness. Although on the surface these carve outs themselves 
may appear minor, in fact they eliminate the bright lines. Instead, 
these provisions reduce virtually the entire RPFJ essentially to, at 
best, a restatement of the general antitrust rule of reason 
standard, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade.
    For example, Section III.F. of the RPFJ prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against ISVs (or Independent Hardware Vendors) for 
developing, distributing, promoting, using, selling, or licensing 
any software that competes with Microsoft's OS or middleware. But, 
this provision also contains an exception that Microsoft may place 
limitations on an ISV's development, use, distribution or promotion 
of rival software if those limitations are reasonably necessary to 
and of reasonable scope and duration in relation to a bona fide 
contractual obligation of the ISV to use, distribute or promote any 
Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction 
with, Microsoft (emphasis added).\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\As an additional protection against retaliation, Section 
III.B. requires uniform license agreements with uniform terms and 
conditions. But at the same time, it allows for volume discounts for 
either the OS or any bundle of OS products, and it expressly allows 
Microsoft to offer any other manner of discounts. While those 
discounts must be offered and available uniformly, Microsoft could 
creatively design discount programs to favor certain OEMs while 
still making the discount schedule uniform. In addition, Microsoft 
is free to terminate an OEM's license on 30-days notice for any 
other reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, to establish a violation of this provision, the government 
must prove that the limitations are not reasonably necessary and not 
of reasonable scope and duration. This sort of language is contained 
in statements of the antitrust rule of reason. Moreover, it is quite 
possible that this particular language in the RPFJ might be 
interpreted by a court as even more permissive than this. The 
benchmark for reasonableness under the rule of reason is competition 
and consumer welfare. The benchmark in the RPFJ is a bona fide 
contractual obligation. The RPFJ is silent on why the latter term 
replaced the former concepts, and what distinctions, if any, a 
future court should make between a bona fide contractual obligation 
and an anti-competitive exclusionary requirement. Thus, in the best 
of circumstances, this wording is likely to lead to still more 
antitrust litigation over its meaning.
    Section III.G. contains a similar type of exception with respect 
to exclusionary contracts with IAPs and Internet Content Providers 
(ICPs), stating that Microsoft may enter into bona fide joint 
ventures or joint development or service arrangements that will 
effectively allow IAPs and ICPs to enter into exclusivity agreements 
that otherwise would have been banned by the RPFJ. Section III.A. 
mandates that Microsoft not withhold certain monetary or other 
consideration from OEMs as retaliation for dealing with Microsoft 
competitors. But, the provision also contains an exception that 
permits Microsoft to give consideration to OEMs that is commensurate 
with the absolute level or amount of the OEMs development, 
distribution or licensing of Microsoft products or services. At 
best, that exception would call for a rule of reason analysis, 
though this provision too may be even more permissive. These broad 
reasonableness exceptions clearly will make it difficult to enforce 
the decree: every time the government suspects Microsoft's non-
compliance, it must prove a new, independent antitrust violation, 
complete with analysis of anticompetitive effect and efficiency 
defense, and possibly even evidence of market power. These elements 
will take time perhaps a long time to litigate, during which 
Microsoft can continue to operate unconstrained with its monopoly 
power intact. As a result, the exceptions mean that not only does 
the RPFJ fail to achieve immediate and certain relief, it also fails 
to eliminate litigation risk.
    The Justice Department may say that such broad exceptions for 
reasonableness are necessary to permit Microsoft to compete. That 
is, of course, the rationale for the rule of reason. But, the 
considerations involved in a consent decree are somewhat different. 
In this case, Microsoft has been found to have

[[Page 25759]]

violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act for a significant period of 
time in a variety of ways. To provide incentives for Microsoft to 
comply with the antitrust laws and to restore the competition lost 
as a result of Microsoft's actions, an effective conduct remedy must 
contain more than general guidance provided by the rule of reason. 
An effective conduct remedy requires specific limits with bright 
lines that are easy to enforce. This RPFJ has few of them, at best.

2. Limitations and Restrictions in the Coverage of the RPFJ

    There are also significant restrictions on the coverage of 
virtually every prohibition in the RPFJ. Taken together these 
restrictions will dramatically complicate and delay enforcement of 
the RPFJ, greatly increasing the litigation risk. As the result, the 
RPFJ will be ineffective. We 50 provide some illustrative examples 
here, although this is only a sampling of the limitations and 
restrictions.
    The RPFJ purports to give protections to competing middleware. 
For example, the definition of Non-Microsoft Middleware Products in 
Section VI.N. is limited to established middleware products those 
for which at least one million copies have been distributed within 
the previous year. Thus, the RPFJ would not apply to middleware of 
an emerging competitor that has not yet gained broad distribution. 
Nor does it apply to all existing middleware products, for example, 
Microsoft's Windows Explorer. Nor does it apply to third parties who 
repackage Windows with competing middleware. And even in the case of 
middleware that has met the distribution hurdle, the applicability 
of the prohibition does not come into play until the competitor has 
sold one million units in a single year (as opposed to having sold 
one million units in total). This will create an enforcement delay 
as new middleware struggles to overcome anticompetitive Microsoft 
behavior while awaiting the magic threshold of one million in annual 
unit sales.
    Section III. D. of the RPFJ requires that Microsoft disclose the 
APIs for Microsoft middleware. For a new major version of such 
software, the disclosure has to be made no later than the last major 
beta test release. This proposed timing of disclosures makes them 
too late for rivals to be able to release competitive products 
contemporaneously. In addition, for new operating system products, 
the RPFJ requires disclosure only when there have been 150,000 beta 
testers. We understand that most beta tests are smaller than this. 
Further, nothing in the RPFJ limits Microsoft's ability to define a 
beta tester, thereby permitting the virtual absence of a timely 
release of the APIs. Collectively, these provisions ensure that 
Microsoft retains its first-mover advantage and thus a head start on 
any new middleware product.
    Section III.D. also does not require Microsoft to disclose all 
the APIs for the Windows operating system, only the ones used by the 
Microsoft middleware. Thus, new middleware that relies on APIs not 
present in any of Microsoft's middleware would not have access to 
the necessary APIs. Moreover, even if Microsoft did rely on the 
relevant APIs, Microsoft could designate the middleware as a 
component of the OS to avoid disclosing the APIs.
    Indeed, the definition of Microsoft Middleware contains a huge 
loophole that could eliminate all API disclosures. API disclosures 
apply only to APIs used by Microsoft Middleware as defined by 
Definition J (not Microsoft Middleware Products, as defined by 
Definition K). Only ``trademarked'' code is considered Middleware, 
according to provision (b) of Definition J. But, the definition of 
``trademarked'' in Definition T specifically excludes software for 
which Microsoft only claims a trademark in the term Windows or 
something else and attaches that trademarked name to another name 
for which Microsoft lacks or has disclaimed trademark protection. 
For example, it appears that ``Windows Media'' is trademarked but 
``Player'' is not.\85\ If Microsoft lacks or disclaims trademark 
protection for Media Player, then Windows Media Player would 
apparently not be considered Middleware. This then would imply that 
the APIs used by Windows Media Player would not be covered by the 
duty to disclose in Section III.D. The same argument could apply to 
Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Java Virtual Machine and 
Windows Messenger. This problem obviously is exacerbated by the fact 
that Definition U allows Microsoft ``sole discretion'' over the 
definition of the operating system. At the very least, these 
definitional questions create knotty issues that could be disputed 
by Microsoft in a compliance hearing before the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\See, for example, http://www.microsoft.com/info/
cpyright.htm, which lists only Windows Media as trademarked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another significant loophole is contained in Section III.J., 
which expressly allows Microsoft to withhold any APIs (as well as 
communications protocols) that relate to security, anti-piracy, 
anti-virus, encryption or authentication, digital rights management, 
keys, authorization tokens, enforcement criteria, etc. These are not 
obscure or minor exceptions, but instead relate to key applications 
that are at the forefront of Internet and network development 
efforts. These exceptions will prevent full interoperability between 
Windows and rival middleware.\86\ In addition, this Section of the 
RPFJ gives Microsoft a laundry list of credible excuses for not 
complying with other parts of the decree. For example, Microsoft may 
claim that its Windows Media Player (WMP) contains protocols that 
relate to digital rights management. Yet, WMP is currently the 
dominant media player. Without access to the WMP APIs, the third- 
party development of middleware is that much more unlikely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\Interoperability is not a defined term in the RPFJ, an 
oversight that will invite litigation and make enforcement more 
difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if none of the foregoing factors rendered the API 
disclosure ineffectual in repairing the harm to competitive 
middleware, Section III.J.2. of the RPFJ will discourage requests by 
ISVs and others for the APIs. This section permits Microsoft to 
demand that the ISV provide Microsoft with a reasonable business 
need for the APIs and permits Microsoft to test the software using 
the APIs to ensure its compliance with Microsoft's specifications 
for use of the API or interface Microsoft thus will be in a position 
to delay and deny approval of the API use, to either destroy the 
competition or provide Microsoft with time to develop its own 
version before its rival. Consequently, ISVs in competition with 
Microsoft will be reluctant to seek the APIs to the extent it 
requires disclosing to their chief rival exactly what their next 
innovations will be.
    Similarly, Section III. E. of the RPFJ requires that Microsoft 
make available any communications protocols that are used by a 
Microsoft client operating system to interoperate with a Microsoft 
server operating system. Other than providing that this disclosure 
be made on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, there are no 
provisions as to when Microsoft has to make such protocols 
available, nor does the RPFJ spell out what it means to make them 
available. Microsoft's history of openness is relevant. Dr. Rebecca 
Henderson, a DOJ expert witness, testified earlier that: Even when 
Microsoft purports to make something open, it has discretion over 
how rapidly and how effectively it communicates the necessary 
information. [Findings of Fact] 391-393; GX 1931 (email thread about 
how Microsoft concealed the availability of the Java RMI class 
library on Windows). For example, many developers have found that 
even in the case of published APIs it is often critical to have 
access to additional information about the functioning of Windows in 
order to produce quality applications that run smoothly on Windows. 
[Findings of Fact] 337-340, 401 (First Wave agreements); GX 2276 
(quoting Microsoft witness Gordon Eubanks). Since any middleware 
that desires to be genuinely cross-platform must be able to work 
with Windows and with IE, the ability to withhold information in 
this way or to use information as an inducement to ISVs to adopt 
Microsoft- controlled middleware remains a potent tool. In the worse 
case, Microsoft can use its control over the Windows operating 
system to ensure that consumers who attempt to use alternative 
middleware are met with a jolting experience.' [Findings of Fact NN] 
160, 171; GX 334.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\Declaration of Rebecca M. Henderson, Public Redacted 
Version, April 28, 2000, NN47-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At bottom, the issue here is whether the RPFJ can ensure that 
all the necessary APIs and protocols are exposed and that the 
documentation is complete (including source code where necessary) 
and provided on a timely basis. There is nothing in the RPFJ that 
provides any comfort on this score. Thus, no ISV will be able to 
rely on this information for the purposes of creating cross-platform 
middleware. ISVs and others will have to wait for the enforcement 
mechanism of the RPFJ to more precisely define the scope of 
Microsoft's required obligation. But as we discuss below, the ISVs 
will likely be waiting for a substantial period of time before any 
such precision in the RPFJ is provided by the court in a non-
compliance hearing.

[[Page 25760]]

C. The RPFJ Contains a Defective Enforcement Mechanism

    An additional problem with the RPFJ is its weak and defective 
enforcement provisions. Accordingly, the decree does not eliminate 
litigation risk or speed relief. It also means that Microsoft's 
incentives to comply with the decree will be greatly diminished. By 
its terms, the decree is scheduled to last for only five years, but 
in fact, its effective time period will be even shorter because of 
the various time lags already noted (and as further discussed 
below). As just one example, the key provision requiring the 
disclosure of APIs for Windows XP (Section III.D.) may not kick in 
until November 6, 2002. The sad irony is that the time period of the 
decree will be shorter than the period of time between the beginning 
of Microsoft's anticompetitive campaign and the implementation of 
the decree. To be sure, the enforcement provisions of the RPFJ set 
up a structure for monitoring Microsoft's conduct. First, Sections 
IV.B.-C. of the RPFJ create a Technical Committee consisting of 
three experts in software design and programming plus a Microsoft 
Internal Compliance Officer. The Plaintiffs and the Technical 
Committee are given various powers of access to Microsoft documents, 
code, employees, and physical facilities and a mandate to resolve 
any compliance issues informally. Second, if the Plaintiffs take 
issue either with the findings of the technical committee or with 
the proposed informal resolution, the Plaintiffs may petition the 
court for a more acceptable resolution.
    The problems with this mechanism are so substantial that 
effective enforcement will likely be too little too late. For 
example:
    --The Technical Committee is made up of software programming 
experts and will not include experts in the software business. Since 
most of the conduct by Microsoft that the courts found to be illegal 
involved exclusionary contracts, and since much of the consent 
decree consists of prohibitions on this conduct, it is unreasonable 
to expect that software experts will be effective and efficient 
monitors of potential consent decree violations.
    --Microsoft has half the votes on the Committee, which greatly 
reduces the effectiveness of monitoring provisions of the RPFJ.
    --The Technical Committee also has no enforcement powers. Its 
role is limited to fact- finding and informing Microsoft and the 
Plaintiffs as to its findings. Moreover, the Plaintiffs are 
prohibited by a confidentiality agreement from using the findings of 
the Technical Committee in an enforcement proceeding. Thus, although 
the Plaintiffs will have the burden of proving a violation, they 
will lack the benefit of using the findings of the Technical 
Committee.
    --Enforcement of the RPFJ will involve significant delays that 
will destroy its effectiveness. After the Technical Committee 
expresses its concerns, the Plaintiffs will have to independently 
gather evidence on the compliance violation. Then, the Plaintiffs 
will have take Microsoft back to court and make its case that 
Microsoft has violated the decree, taking into account the 
exceptions and unreasonableness standards. This enforcement process 
obviously will involve considerable time.
    Microsoft also has an incentive to maintain its monopoly by 
erecting roadblocks to swift enforcement because any enforcement 
delay will accrue to Microsoft's advantage. As we discussed in 
Section II, the applications barrier to entry has protected 
Microsoft's monopoly. Thus, how the market has evolved over time 
affects the degree to which competition can emerge at any given 
moment. While the market is awaiting enforcement of the RPFJ, 
nascent technologies will die and potential new entrants will 
disappear from the scene, unable to overcome the applications 
barrier. By delaying enforcement, Microsoft decreases the likelihood 
that effective competition can realistically emerge.
    Aggravating the problem of delays are the extremely weak 
penalties for non-compliance in the RPFJ. The only specific penalty 
spelled out in the decree is a one-time, two-year extension of the 
five-year decree. This modest penalty will not deter Microsoft from 
engaging in unlawful acts but instead will allow the defendant to 
continue to enjoy the fruits of its monopoly. Under current market 
conditions, with an entrenched monopoly protected by the 
applications barrier to entry, Microsoft's incentive is to delay 
justice for as long as it can. Indeed, that has been Microsoft's 
conduct so far; witness its latest petition before the court to 
delay the remedy phase for another several months.
    Moreover, the weak penalty provisions apply only if the court 
finds that Microsoft has engaged in a pattern of willful and 
systematic violations. (RPFJ, Section V.) Any further relief and 
penalties are left unspecified, increasing Microsoft's ability and 
incentive to resist and delay.

D. Conclusions: The RPFJ Will Not Restore Competition

    For all these reasons, the RPFJ cannot restore competition even 
to the level that existed prior to the onset of Microsoft's illegal 
exclusionary conduct. Even if in principle we could roll back the 
clock to the period before the introduction and destruction of 
Netscape Navigator and Sun's Java, Microsoft could continue to 
discourage the development and distribution of effective middleware 
almost as freely and effectively as if there had been no trial and 
no RPFJ. Thus, as low as the DOJ remedy standard is, the DOJ remedy 
fails to satisfy that standard. In any event, we discuss in detail 
in the next section, rolling back the clock is impossible: 
Microsoft's monopoly has become more entrenched since the beginning 
of the trial, while potential entrants with new products that might 
compete with Microsoft thus face even higher hurdles in gaining 
financial backing from venture capitalists.
    The Justice Department might argue that these comments ignore 
the fact that the RPFJ will implement immediate and certain relief, 
free of litigation risk, arguing that in the absence of a 
settlement, the DOJ might contend that a full-blown remedy hearing 
process with inevitable appeals would result in substantial delay in 
implementation. And if that were to happen, the Justice Department 
might further argue that the resulting court-approved remedy may be 
more lenient than the RPFJ.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\Statement of Charles James to Committee of the Judiciary 
(United States Senate), supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree on all counts. First, the enforcement of the RPFJ 
itself is fraught with substantial litigation risk. As discussed 
above, certain key provisions do nothing more than restate the 
antitrust rule of reason. These provisions would require the 
government to prove a new antitrust violation in an enforcement 
action. All of the other provisions contain significant exceptions 
and loopholes that will create litigation risk in an enforcement 
action. These provisions are difficult to enforce because they raise 
knotty definitional issues and provide Microsoft with significant 
defenses. The fact that the enforcement mechanism is defective 
further raises litigation risk. Indeed, it is not clear that 
effective enforcement is possible under the RPFJ.
    Second, in our view, the potential litigation delay is an 
inadequate justification for the weakness of the RPFJ. Waiting an 
extra year or even two to obtain an effective remedy (once all 
appeals have been exhausted) is better than implementing a RPFJ that 
can only be characterized as a pseudo-remedy. In any event, certain 
key provisions of the RFPJ involve significant delays. In 
particular, the requirement in Section III.H. to allow end users and 
OEMs to remove icons is delayed for 12 months. The requirement to 
disclose and document Windows XP's APIs to ISVs and other potential 
middleware providers in Section III.D. does not take effect for 12 
months. The disclosure of communications protocols is delayed for 9 
months. And, as discussed above, the reasonableness test and other 
exceptions will lead to adjudication delays in any enforcement 
actions.
    In recent statements, Assistant Attorney General James has 
attempted to justify this pseudo-remedy on the grounds that the DC 
Circuit significantly narrowed the case.\89\ But the DOJ did not 
lose the case at the DC Circuit. To the contrary, the government 
prevailed on the Section 2 monopoly maintenance count, which is the 
core part of the complaint. The other counts were far less important 
and the conduct attacked in the tying and monopoly leverage claims 
provided the basis for liability for monopolization. The government 
won a great victory in this important case. That victory deserves an 
effective remedy that restores competition to this key industry in 
our modern economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The RPFJ Should Have Applied A More Appropriate Remedial Standard

    In the previous section, we explained how the Justice 
Department's RPFJ does not satisfy the Department's own claimed goal 
of restoring competition to the level existing before the initiation 
of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct. In this section, we explain 
why the Department's goal is not the proper standard by which to 
evaluate an antitrust remedy for illegal monopoly maintenance. The 
DOJ has set too low a standard.

[[Page 25761]]

A. Restoring Competition

    The requirement in United Shoe that the remedy deny the 
defendant the fruits of its monopoly underscores why the standard 
set forth by the Department in its Competitive Impact Statement (at 
3) clearly is incorrect. The standard in the CIS is simply to 
restore the competitive landscape as it was in the OS market in 1995 
before Microsoft's unlawful conduct began. Of course, unlike the 
situation in 1995, Netscape has been destroyed and Java has lost its 
head start. They have now been replaced by Microsoft's own 
offerings. In order both to restore competition and deny Microsoft 
the fruits of its anticompetitive conduct, the court should restore 
competition to the condition it would have achieved by now in the 
absence of Microsoft's unlawful conduct. More broadly, the United 
Shoe standard requires the remedy in a monopolization case to 
terminate the monopoly. Clearly, the RPFJ fails to satisfy that 
standard as it leaves Microsoft's dominance intact. As set forth 
below, the additional conduct provisions suggested by the nine 
states that are not party to the RPFJ would at least give 
competition in the OS market a reasonable chance to work, 
particularly if also supplemented with an automatic structural 
remedy for significant violations of a revised decree. A structural 
remedy that actually terminated the Microsoft's OS market power at 
the outset would be even better because it would directly and 
immediately create the OS competition lost as a result of 
Microsoft's exclusionary behavior.

B. Need for a Remedy Hearing

    At the same time that it sets too low a remedial standard, the 
RPFJ also attempts to short circuit the Tunney Act process of 
determining the whether the public interest would be served by 
setting a higher standard. The DOJ's RPFJ implicitly assumes that 
very little real competition was lost.\90\ By contrast, as our 
discussion in Section II makes clear, the competitive impact of 
Microsoft's unlawful behavior has been significant and significantly 
more competition would exist in the OS market today were it not for 
that conduct. At a minimum, this court should evaluate through 
factual inquiry and an evidentiary record what that anticompetitive 
impact has been. This hearing process would be consistent with the 
DC Circuit instruction to the District Court to evaluate the actual 
loss in competition in fashioning relief. The passage of time since 
the closing of the trial record provides the court with the ability 
to explore and resolve this issue in a remedial hearing. The RPFJ 
not only would cut off such an inquiry, but it also simultaneously 
rejects the need for any such investigation by announcing a clearly 
inappropriate standard for assessing its adequacy. For this reason 
alone, the RPFJ fails the public interest test. Standing alone, the 
RFPJ would deprive this court of the ability to determine whether 
the RPFJ is in the public interest, or whether a stronger remedy is 
need to repair the loss in competition. Thus, we agree with the 
court's decision to evaluate the RPFJ in tandem with the hearings on 
the remedy proposal of the Litigating States and in comparison to 
that alternative remedial proposal.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\For example, the CIS (at 11) notes that Navigator and Sun's 
Java had the potential to weaken the applications barrier and (at 
16) discusses the process by which these two middleware technologies 
could have facilitated the introduction of competition.
    \91\253 F.3d at 79-80, 106-107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whatever it is, the remedy in this case will have an ongoing, 
long-run impact on the course of the computer software industry, a 
key sector of our modern economy. Too weak a remedy will not repair 
the damage to the market and restore competition. Too weak a remedy 
will fail to discourage Microsoft from engaging in future 
anticompetitive behavior. Too weak a remedy will discourage new 
competitors from trying to attack Microsoft's illegally maintained 
monopoly while encouraging other new economy firms with monopoly 
power to maintain their monopoly positions with anticompetitive 
exclusion.

C. Evaluating the Impact on Competition

    Simply because the Navigator and Sun's Java competition were 
nascent competitors does not lead logically to DOJ's apparent 
inference that there has been not much competitive harm from 
Microsoft's actions. These threats were nascent in 1995 but now six 
years have passed, a period of a shifting paradigm in which they 
would have grown to maturity. We believe that after this court 
conducts a remedy hearing, the court will conclude, as we have, that 
Microsoft's extensive unlawful acts have had a significant 
anticompetitive impact on competition. In particular, a review of 
the facts would take the following points into account.
    First, we know that nascent competitors can lead to significant 
competition. We know now with much more certainty than in 1995 that 
the Internet has transformed the way we use PCs. It was this 
occasion of the paradigm shift that offered the opportunity to 
reduce, if not eliminate, Microsoft's dominance of operating 
systems.
    Second, we know that Netscape Navigator and Sun's Java were at 
the center of this transformation in the computing paradigm. By 
neutralizing the threats of both Navigator and Sun's Java, Microsoft 
maintained its Windows operating system monopoly. As a result of its 
unlawful conduct, Microsoft has gained much greater control over 
computing in this new paradigm.
    For example, MS Internet Explorer (IE) is now the dominant 
browser. As such, web content and other applications are now 
optimized for the IE standards controlled by Microsoft instead of 
Navigator or any other browser, and no other browser offers a 
plausible alternative as a platform for applications developers. 
Accordingly, barriers to entry for a new OS are now higher than they 
were in 1995. Similarly, Microsoft's Java implementation has become 
well established. Today many developers have acquired expertise in 
the use of Microsoft's Java tools and would need to bear switching 
costs to begin using Sun's Java tools. Consequently, Sun's Java has 
lost significant momentum that it by itself is unlikely to recover.
    Third, as a result of the evidence contained in the internal 
discussions among the Microsoft senior management, we know that 
Microsoft itself was greatly concerned about losing its monopoly 
power and control over the market during this paradigm shift and 
about the key role of Netscape Navigator and other middleware in 
this transformation. In and of itself, this concern is evidence that 
while nascent, the middleware threat would likely have become a 
substantial competitive constraint on Microsoft. We have previously 
(in Section II) cited Bill Gates' own concern that Navigator would 
commoditize the supply of operating systems. We have also noted that 
other Microsoft executives believed that IE could not beat Navigator 
on the merits.
    Fourth, we know that in desktop operating systems, monopoly 
power has not been fleeting. Microsoft has maintained its monopoly 
over the course of the paradigm shift. The court has found that 
Microsoft engaged in a series of unlawful acts with the purpose of 
maintaining this monopoly. Thus, it makes no logical sense to assume 
that the illegal conduct failed to have its intended anticompetitive 
effects.
    Fifth, we know that Microsoft has used the past six years to 
entrench the monopoly power of the Windows operating system and gain 
greater control over computing in the new Internet paradigm. In 
Section II, we noted that Microsoft's new OS, Windows XP, has 
technologically bound key Internet-gateway applications such as 
Windows Media Player to the operating system and its various 
browsers. In this way, Microsoft discourages software developers 
from writing their programs to competing middleware platforms. This 
also makes it harder for operating system competition to emerge.
    Sixth, we know that as Microsoft's monopoly has become more 
entrenched, no alternative middleware threat has yet emerged that 
can match the significance of the threats posed by Navigator and 
Sun's Java in 1995. And, as we noted in Section II, the next 
middleware threat will face an even more imposing applications 
barrier now that Microsoft controls APIs and other standards, such 
as those for handheld computers, applications and platforms in 
browsing, Java and multimedia. Independent software developers are 
now even less likely to write to non-Microsoft platforms than at the 
close of the trial record. A new platform entrant must now be able 
to overcome an applications barrier for these additional 
applications as part of the process of overcoming the applications 
barrier for the desktop OS.
    All in all, there is ample reason to believe that Microsoft's 
actions had substantial anticompetitive effects. By holding a remedy 
hearing, these effects can be made part of the record.

D. The Need for an Effective Remedy

    In this environment, the RPFJ cannot restore the competition 
lost as a result of Microsoft's exclusion. That is because the 
potent threats that existed in 1995 most importantly, those posed by 
Navigator and Sun's Java are no longer competitive factors and 
Microsoft's monopoly has become entrenched and its power more 
pervasive. As Professor Romer has observed:

[[Page 25762]]

    There is no way to revive the threat posed by the specific 
technologies that Netscape and Sun were developing, nor to recover 
the innovative efforts that were deterred by Microsoft over the last 
five years. The market has moved on.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\Romer Declaration N7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To repair the loss in competition and deter future 
anticompetitive conduct, a remedy must restore the degree of 
competition that would have existed today but for Microsoft's 
exclusionary conduct. As stated by another one of the DOJ's economic 
experts on remedy, Professor Shapiro, the remedy should operate:
    Efirst, to prevent a recurrence in the future of conduct by 
Microsoft akin to its past anti-competitive behavior, and second to 
affirmatively bolster competition, which Microsoft has stifled Given 
the goal of enabling, but not compelling, competition to Windows in 
the market for operating systems, it is important to identify, as 
best we can, the likely sources of such competition in the 
foreseeable future, both to make sure that Microsoft cannot blockade 
operating systems rivals, and to inform any remedial provisions 
designed positively to foster operating system competition.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\Shapiro Declaration at 3 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the DOJ's wishful thinking, the RPFJ cannot simply 
turn back the clock to 1995 and rerun history again, this time with 
Microsoft obeying the antitrust laws. To serve the public interest, 
the remedy must restore the degree of competition that would have 
existed today in the absence of Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct 
since 1995. To evaluate this loss in competition that must be 
repaired, the court must hold a remedial hearing, not simply accept 
the assertions of Microsoft and the DOJ that the loss in competition 
has been minimal, irrelevant or unknown.
    We believe that after such a hearing, the court will conclude 
that a more effective remedy also is needed to provide deterrence 
against a recurrence of anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. Under 
the DOJ standard, if Microsoft quickly squashes a nascent middleware 
competitor when it comes on the scene, the antitrust penalty will be 
small because of the small impact that competitor has achieved at 
the time of its demise. This rule will not deter but rather will 
simply encourage an even more rapid anticompetitive response to new 
entry. The more quickly Microsoft acts, the lower will be the 
implied penalty, because the more likely it is that the squashed 
rival would not yet have had any significant competitive effect. 
This remedial framework would create a vicious cycle of 
anticompetitive conduct and monopoly entrenchment. In the end, it 
would swallow up the liability standard and destroy deterrence, as 
monopolists find that they have little to fear from antitrust 
remedies.

VI. More Effective Alternative Remedies

    In the Amicus Brief that we filed with this court,\94\ we 
offered the court our views on the most effective remedy to the 
anticompetitive harms resulting from Microsoft's illegal actions. 
While the DC Circuit only partially affirmed this court's decision--
in particular, the core of the Section 2 violations--it still is our 
view that the panoply of illegal efforts of Microsoft to maintain 
its OS monopoly power requires the structural remedy we previously 
suggested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\Litan, Nordhaus and Noll, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. The Full Divestiture Structural Remedy

    We urged Judge Jackson to consider what we called full 
divestiture as the best means for addressing all the remedial goals 
in this case. We reiterate our recommendation to this court. The 
full divestiture remedy would contain two elements. First, it would 
divide Microsoft's businesses into two parts: the operating system 
and the applications, with the applications residing in a completely 
independent entity.\95\ We have called this functional divestiture. 
Second, our proposed remedy would dissolve the monopoly of the 
operating systems. The dissolution of the Windows monopoly would be 
accomplished by effectively cloning the current Windows division 
into two additional companies, so that three distinct firms would 
have a full license to all the intellectual property of Microsoft's 
current OS division. We have referred to the functional divestiture 
combined with the dissolution of the Windows monopoly as full 
divestiture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\Judge Jackson's divestiture remedy involved only this 
functional divestiture. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F. 
Supp. 2d 59, 64-65 (D.DC 2000) (``Final Judgment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By placing the Microsoft applications such as Office into an 
entity (AppsCo) that is financially distinct from any operating 
system entity, the remedy ensures that AppsCo will have the 
incentive to provide applications for other operating systems, such 
as Linux and the Mac OS.
    That is, Microsoft will no longer be able to ensure that its 
applications run only on Windows, thereby depriving Microsoft of 
critical means of raising and maintaining the applications barrier 
to entry to rival operating systems. By creating three separate 
operating systems entities (WinCos), the proposed remedy acts to 
ensure that at the outset, there will be competition in the sale of 
operating systems.
    Why three OS entities? The experience of having just two 
competitors in a market, such as the duopoly that used to exist in 
the wireless telecommunications business before the number of 
licenses was expanded, suggests that having only two competitors in 
a market is not a reliable protection against monopoly. Significant 
price and/or quality competition does not generally appear until 
there are at least three firms. Moreover, in light of the 
significant barriers to new entry into the OS market, having three 
competitors provides a margin of safety. With only two competitors, 
if one stumbles and fails, the market would then revert back into a 
full-blown monopoly. In addition, with three competitors, the market 
is less likely to tip back to an operating system monopoly.
    Full divestiture would completely meet the remedy goals in the 
case:
    --It would immediately (upon a final verdict) create competition 
in the OS market. Because even a small increase in the relative 
price or quality by one of the Windows companies could easily have a 
substantial impact on its sales, the three-way company split would 
stimulate price and quality competition in operating systems.
    --Full divestiture would essentially nullify the applications 
barrier to entry. The barrier would be removed because, at the 
outset, developers would be able to write programs for all of the 
WinCos simultaneously. None of the WinCos would have an initial 
installed base advantage.
    --Full divestiture would allow the market to develop unfettered 
from judicial oversight or other forms of intrusive regulation that 
accompany a conduct decree. In a matter this complex, a conduct 
decree will inevitably require that the court at some point become 
mired in various complex claims, such as whether a particular API is 
really covered by one of the exceptions in the decree, or that its 
disclosure is more difficult than initially contemplated, or that in 
any event, a waiver is justified in light of the benefits obtained. 
Even if the court sets deadlines, Microsoft can be expected to 
provide testimony from its managers claiming unexpected technical 
difficulties or that bugs have slowed the company down. It will be 
difficult for the court to sort out fact from exaggeration when such 
disputes arise. And the court will inevitably become the analog to 
Judge Greene's oversight of the AT&T decree, generating full 
employment for lawyers, economists, and software engineers. Certain 
criticisms of the full divestiture option have been raised, none of 
which we believe should hold back implementation of full 
divestiture.
    The first criticism is that the creation of multiple Windows 
companies would fragment what is the Windows standard and lead to 
incompatible operating systems that would raise costs to ISVs and 
users.\96\ On closer analysis, this criticism is not compelling. At 
bottom, this fragmentation critique is actually an attack on any 
remedy that fosters OS competition. It is competition, not the 
structural remedy, that arguably leads to fragmentation. And the 
argument simply assumes that competition would lead to significant 
OS incompatibilities among the three WinCos. This assumption is 
unwarranted. In the short run, there would not be a fragmentation 
problem because each of the Windows companies would be using the 
same existing APIs. Over the longer run, the economies of scale and 
network externalities (i.e., the large installed base of current 
Windows users) would create a powerful tendency for the WinCos to 
maintain a high level of compatibility and interoperability, if not 
an absolutely unitary OS standard. This would allow applications 
software developers to write programs for each operating system with 
minimum additional porting costs. Meanwhile, to the extent 
innovation in operating systems occurs, it is likely that new 
features would be added in modular fashion, so that the current core 
aspects of the operating system

[[Page 25763]]

would retain their common APIs.\97\ In any event, if innovation is 
the price for fragmentation, then that is a good outcome because it 
will be competition at work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\See, for example, Stan Liebowitz, A Fool's Paradise: The 
Windows World after the Forced Breakup of Microsoft (February 24, 
2000) (http:wwwpub.utdallas.edu/liebowit/msstuff/newact.htm).
    \97\A more extensive discussion of the flaws of the 
fragmentation claim can be found in Robert J. Levinson, R. Craig 
Romaine and Steven C. Salop, The Flawed Fragmentation Critique of 
Structural Remedies in the Microsoft Case, ANTITRUST BULLETIN 
(Spring 2001) at 135-162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second criticism is that the break up of a unitary company 
like Microsoft would be disruptive and lead to redundancy in 
operating units. We agree that some disruption would be involved in 
the divestiture and that there would be some redundancy among the 
WinCos.\98\ However, we believe that the resulting increase in 
competition and elimination of the ongoing need for the court to 
monitor, if not regulate, Microsoft makes these costs worth bearing. 
In any event, Microsoft has likely exaggerated these costs. For 
example, a writer for the Wall Street Journal reported that at least 
a dozen top managers at Microsoft are of the view that the company 
should be reorganized into smaller, competing units as a way of 
fostering more rapid innovation.\99\ In addition, relative to other 
firms, divestiture here is easier to implement because Microsoft's 
key assets are embodied in its intellectual property, which can be 
shared rather than divided. This issue can be examined in more 
detail at the remedy hearing. A related criticism might be that 
while the intellectual property may be easy to divide among the 
WinCos, allocating the employees to the three entities in a way that 
will maintain their viability would be more problematic. Here, too, 
these concerns overstate the realistic difficulties of implementing 
this remedy. The critical employees may be higher-level managers, 
among whom there is enough shared knowledge about the development 
and deployment of new operating systems to permit them to manage the 
new companies. Further, there is likely to be enough lead time 
between adoption of the remedy and its implementation to ensure 
symmetry in knowledge among the managers of the WinCos. Finally, we 
suspect that other companies, notably the remaining major 
middleware, netware and applications firms, are likely to jump at 
the chance to acquire a license on reasonable terms for the current 
version of Windows. At a minimum, before the divestiture remedy is 
written off for this reason, an inquiry into the willingness of 
others to license Windows ought to be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\There would not be significant redundancy between the AppsCo 
and the operating system companies because the way in which 
Microsoft is organized along functional lines. See Brier Dudley, 
Microsoft Does Its Usual Spring Shuffle, Seattle Times (Apr. 6, 
2001) at C1.
    \99\David Bank, Breaking Windows: How Bill Gates Fumbled The 
Future Of Microsoft (Free Press 2001), at 182-183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We continue in any event to believe that a structural remedy of 
the kind just described is most capable of repairing the competitive 
harm resulting from Microsoft's illegal behavior. That remedy is 
much more likely to result in a reduction in the applications 
barrier to entry confronting new operating systems than a conduct 
remedy. This is so because it would immediately introduce 
competition into the OS market. Thus, ISVs would automatically be 
writing applications that are compatible with multiple OS 
competitors' products. By introducing real competition into the OS 
market, the structural remedy will be much more self-enforcing than 
would a conduct remedy.

B. Litigating States' Proposed Remedy

    If the court rules out the full divestiture remedy, the conduct 
remedy recently proposed by the Litigating States certainly 
surpasses the Justice Department RPFJ by an order of magnitude and 
offers the promise of real competitive benefits. The LS proposal 
addresses all the antitrust violations and closes the gaping 
loopholes in the RPFJ. The LS proposal reduces the applications 
barrier to entry to a level closer to what would have occurred in 
the absence of Microsoft's exclusionary behavior. The LS proposal 
also greatly improves the mechanism for effectively enforcing the 
decree and increases Microsoft's incentives to comply. Comparing the 
LS proposal to the RPFJ demonstrates why the RPFJ is not in the 
public interest.

1. Addressing All Violations, Eliminating Exceptions and Closing 
Loopholes

    The Litigating States proposal addresses all the violations 
found by the DC Circuit, unlike the RPFJ. The LS proposal directly 
remedies the commingling violation by proscribing the binding of any 
middleware code to the Windows code (or alternatively, by requiring 
that Microsoft to make available an otherwise identical version of 
Windows that does not include the middleware). More generally, the 
LS definitions make it more difficult for Microsoft to define 
middleware as part of the Windows OS. The proposal also requires 
Microsoft to include a Sun- compliant version of Java in Windows. 
Further, the LS proposal eliminates the most serious exceptions and 
closes the most egregious loopholes in the RPFJ. For example, we 
noted previously that the RPFJ permits Microsoft to terminate an 
OEM's license for Windows on 30 days notice. In the LS proposal, 
Microsoft must provide 60 days notice, provide the licensee with the 
reason for the termination, and provide the OEM with the opportunity 
to cure the problem. In addition, unlike the RPFJ, the LS proposal 
applies to third-party packagers as well as OEMs, thus further 
restricting the avenues by which Microsoft can harass distributors 
of rival middleware.
    The LS proposal acts to prevent Microsoft from using the same 
exclusionary strategies to entrench its monopoly power by the newest 
type of Internet middleware. For example, the entire .Net strategy 
of Microsoft by which XP users are directed to the Internet to use a 
variety of Microsoft applications will be defined as middleware by 
the LS proposal. As a result, OEMs (and others) will have the option 
of licensing the Windows OS without the default direction to the 
Microsoft applications. Similarly, under the terms of the LS 
proposal, Microsoft must offer a version of Windows to OEMs and 
others that does not bind Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger 
to the Windows OS. In this way, developers of this kind of web-
centric software that could develop into middleware will not face 
the same distributional hurdles that Microsoft placed in Navigator's 
way.

2. Reducing the Applications Barrier to Entry

    Unlike the RPFJ, the LS proposal actually acts to repair the 
competitive harm by including four provisions that would reduce the 
applications barrier to entry. This is very important because only 
by reducing the applications barrier to entry can the loss in 
competition be repaired. First, the proposal requires that Microsoft 
license the source code for IE. This means that third parties can 
transform IE into a true independent middleware platform to replace 
Netscape Navigator, while helping to repair the loss in competition 
caused by Microsoft's destruction of Netscape Navigator. This is a 
much more effective remedy than simply hoping that another 
middleware platform will appear, as the RPFJ does. Second, the LS 
proposal requires that Microsoft distribute a Sun-compliant version 
of Java with Windows and with IE. This provision will help to repair 
the loss in competition caused by Microsoft's anticompetitive 
conduct towards Java that was affirmed by the DC Circuit. Although 
this remedy does not offset the loss in momentum suffered by Java 
from Microsoft's exclusionary conduct, it will help Java to become 
better established as a middleware platform. As a result, it will 
encourage software developers to write applications in Sun's Java. 
Third, the LS proposal requires that Microsoft license its Office 
suite of applications to other vendors, who then could port Office 
to competing operating systems. This provision should also reduce 
the applications barrier to entry by giving rival operating systems 
access to this important application. This porting provision also 
will prevent Microsoft from repeating its efforts to compel Apple to 
withhold support for competing middleware by threatening to 
terminate the production of Office for the Mac OS. Fourth, the LS 
proposal requires that upon a release of a new version of its 
operating system, Microsoft must continue to license and support the 
predecessor versions of the OS. This provision will prevent 
Microsoft from raising the applications barrier to entry by 
withholding the mandatory timely disclosure of APIs to would-be 
middleware contenders. In the absence of this provision, Microsoft 
could frequently offer new, slightly modified versions of the OS 
that render the middleware based on the predecessor APIs unworkable 
with the new version. Middleware developers would be discouraged if 
they knew that Microsoft could raise their costs simply by slightly 
revising the operating system code in a way that requires the 
middleware to be significantly modified. The LS proposal constrains 
the effect of this conduct by permitting the OEMs to continue to 
offer the previous version of the OS that is compatible with the 
rival middleware product.

3. Improving the Enforcement Process

    The LS proposal also adds teeth to the enforcement process. 
Importantly, the proposal streamlines the indefinite and laborious 
process of investigating violations of the remedy. Of particular 
significance is the requirement that a Special Master be appointed 
to conduct investigations in response to complaints and propose

[[Page 25764]]

resolutions on an expedited basis. Moreover, the findings of the 
Special Master may be used by the complainants in other proceedings, 
unlike any findings by the Technical Committee in the RPFJ. In 
addition, the penalty for a violation is not merely an extension of 
the term of a settlement (as in the RPFJ) that offers little in the 
way of constraints on Microsoft's behavior to begin with. In the LS 
proposal, if a violation involves Microsoft middleware, the court 
can order Microsoft to license the source code of that middleware. 
In the case of a pattern of violations, Microsoft also could be 
ordered to pay substantial civil penalties.

C. Recommended Modifications

    If the court feels constrained to adopting a conduct remedy, 
then the proposal of the Litigating States clearly is far superior 
to the RPFJ. However, we think that it could be improved further by 
making several modifications.
    First, although the more severe penalties in the LS proposal 
will increase Microsoft's incentives to comply relative to the 
RPFJ's compliance incentives, we prefer a more significant and 
definitive penalty for a pattern of material non-compliance: one 
that would require the court to order a full divestiture in the 
event of a pattern of material non-compliance. We favor this 
stronger stick because the rapid pace of change in the computer 
industry means that a failure of the remedy to fully deter 
anticompetitive conduct can result in substantial and ongoing harm 
to competition and innovation.
    Second, we would strengthen the enforcement mechanism by 
requiring MS to self-certify compliance every six months. This self-
certification procedure adds teeth to Microsoft's antitrust 
compliance program. It will increase Microsoft's incentives to 
comply with the order because false certification would justify more 
severe penalties. Third, in recognition of the rapid pace of change 
and the strength of network effects, the term of the decree should 
be left open. After five years, the decree should be reviewed to see 
whether it can be terminated or, alternatively, needs to be modified 
to make it stronger and more effective. Our concern is that if the 
conduct remedy fails to lead Microsoft to fully comply and compete 
on the merits, its current monopoly position will only become more 
entrenched over time. If the review concludes that the LS remedy has 
not been effective, the court could then extend the term, modify the 
conduct provisions in some way, or order a divestiture. 
Alternatively, if robust competition has become established, the 
decree could be terminated.

VII. Conclusion

    Antitrust history contains important cautionary signals about 
the efficacy of conduct remedies, most notably, United Shoe itself. 
The government successfully challenged the practices of United Shoe, 
leading to a conduct decree in 1922.\100\ When that decree proved 
ineffectual, the government successfully challenged United Shoe for 
maintaining its illegal monopoly.\101\ This time, the government 
sought to divide United Shoe into three different companies.\102\ 
Judge Wyzanski in the main disagreed, instead ordering extensive and 
intrusive conduct remedies requiring on-going judicial 
oversight.\103\ Over time, it became clear that the conduct remedies 
failed to generate a more competitive marketplace and the government 
asked the court to break United Shoe up into two independent 
companies.\104\ When Judge Wyzanski refused, the government 
appealed, and in 1968, the Supreme Court intervened and unanimously 
made clear that a structural remedy was the preferred remedy for 
monopolization cases.\105\ In United Shoe, the conduct remedy failed 
to restore competition for decades after the initial finding of 
monopolization. In the interim, consumers lost the benefits that 
more decisive action would have generated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. United States, 258 U.S. 451 
(1922).
    \101\United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295 
(D.Mass. 1953), aff'd, 347 U.S. 521 (1954).
    \102\110 F. Supp. at 348.
    \103\Id. at 347-348.
    \104\266 F. Supp. 328 (D. Mass. 1967).
    \105\391 U.S. 244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the rapid pace of change in the computer industry, a long 
time lag between the initial detection of the problem and its 
ultimate resolution will impose substantial costs on consumers in 
terms of higher prices and lost innovation. Worse, unlike 
manufacturing industries, over time Microsoft's monopoly power will 
become even more entrenched (as a result of network effects, the 
applications barrier to entry, and consumer lock-in) if the LS 
proposal fails to reinvigorate competition. This will make it all 
the more difficult to implement an effective remedy in the future. 
At a minimum, an automatic 5-year review of the efficacy of the LS 
proposal will help ensure that the courts and consumers do not 
become victims of the passage of time if the conduct remedy fails.
    Ultimately, however, it is vital that the court weigh 
alternative remedies before signing off on an adequate remedy that 
fails to protect the interests of consumers in this industry, and 
indeed because of the importance of this industry to overall 
economic growth, of the economy as a whole.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert E. Litan
    Roger Noll
    William D. Nordhaus
    Date:January 17, 2002
    Contact information:
    Robert E. Litan
    The Brookings Institution
    1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
    Washington, DC 20036
    202-797-6120



MTC-00013367

From: Paul Greatbatch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You will have to be the brave souls who make up for the failings 
of your predecessors.
    Like a parent that is forced to deal with a troubled teen 
because they did not enforce discipline at a younger age, the 
current situation demands revolutionary, not evolutionary, action. 
The issue of structural remedy cannot be removed from consideration.
    Fact: Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly.
    Despite all PR and marketing effort to the contrary, this ruling 
is public knowledge and has been upheld in a separate ruling.
    Fact: Microsoft has manipulated the marketplace to its own 
advantage to limit reseller, manufacturer and consumer choice.
    The company has threatened the marketplace with drastic 
repercussions if matters do not run their course in a manner that is 
advantageous to its bottom line. It has forced competitors out of 
business, not by quality or innovation, but by abuse of its monopoly 
position.
    Fact: Microsoft has made less than subtle threats that any 
action taken against it would be injurious to the nation's economy.
    These statements have reverberated through the marketplace and 
political halls. The fact is, if the nation can weather September 
11, it can weather structural remedies against an abusive technology 
company.
    Fact: Microsoft has forced bloated and unsecure software into 
the marketplace.
    The term 'bloatware' is defined by Microsoft and its security 
problems are legendary. Even the FBI released an alert as of late 
asking users to disable features that are core to the future of 
Microsoft's .NET propagation. While this affected a relatively small 
number of users, it is the latest example of Microsoft's disregard 
for consumers.
    Fact: Microsoft has amassed a huge cash reserve by avoiding tax 
payments.
    The company skirts the tax laws by having a relatively few 
individuals hold a large portion of the company's stock, which 
translates to the company acting on the personal agendas of these 
few individuals as opposed to a wider variety of company 
shareholders.
    Fact: Similar measures proposed in the past have done nothing to 
stem the growing monopoly power of Microsoft.
    Again, to use the analogy of the parent: when grounding the 
child and removing their allowance for a few weeks does not resolve 
the behavioral issues, more stringent action needs to be taken.
    An imposed structural remedy (3 companies: 1 for software, 1 for 
hardware, for internet) will not bring the economy crashing to its 
knees. The only people that will be upset by such a decision will be 
the few majority stockholders of Microsoft who have their personal 
agendas of greed and control upset by a long overdue, but deserving, 
punishment.
    Best Regards,
    Paul



MTC-00013368

From: Jeff Jay
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25765]]

Date: 1/17/02  10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very discouraged by Microsoft1s naked monopoly in the 
system software and office productivity markets. The range of 
settlements that have been discussed do not begin to address the 
real problem.
    I would like to see two or more companies competing with Windows 
software.
    I would also like to see two or more companies competing with 
Microsoft Office software. Without this competition, the monopolies 
will continue.
    Jeff Jay
    356 Belanger
    Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236



MTC-00013369

From: Rob Frohne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi Your Honor,
    The proposed settlement seems like it could do as much to 
promote Microsoft's business as some of the monopolistic practices 
that it is supposed to punish. For example, it will probably have a 
large impact on Apple's last stronghold, the educational market. 
Perhaps a more fair solution would be for Microsoft to provide the 
cash to purchase the same amount of hardware and software for 
education, but let it be distributed among all computer 
manufacturers, or better yet, let the educators decide what they 
want to purchase.
    Best regards,
    Rob



MTC-00013370

From: John O'Brien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
10505 Blue Heron Court
Bishopville, MD 21813-1477
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 11, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the settlement reached between the 
government and Microsoft in the antitrust case. A lot of time has 
been spent on this, and I hope finally Microsoft will be able to get 
back to providing America with its innovative creations. I am 
dissatisfied with the amount of money now necessary to conduct 
business in the software industry due to government antitrust laws. 
I would like the legislature to review and update these laws so that 
the laws are applicable to today's technology industries.
    I think the settlement is very fair, particularly Microsoft's 
willingness to grant computer makers broad new rights to configure 
Windows so as to promote non-Microsoft software programs that 
'compete with programs included within Windows. Microsoft's decision 
not to retaliate against computer makers and software developers who 
ship software that competes with anything in its Windows operating 
system is also a key concession that will benefit competitors and 
consumers alike
    In closing, I thank Microsoft for not wasting taxpayer money in 
a lengthy and costly legal battle and for being so generous with 
this settlement. I urge you to approve this settlement, and allow 
Microsoft to move on.
    Sincerely,
    John R. O'Brien
    John R. O'Brien
    443 497 0785 Mobile



MTC-00013371

From: Chris Manjoine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dir Sir or Madam,
    Coming from the Software development industry I know the power 
of Microsoft and their Market Share. They totally dominate the 
competition regardless of the alternatives benefits of these 
programs clients and business are not willing to use these 
technologies because of blind marketing that the microsoft product 
will do what they need, when it doesn't. If they were as good of 
programmers as they where salesman I might be looking the other way. 
When we have a wealth of open source software and proprietary 
software out their and 90 percent of the consumers only know 
microsoft because of its msnbc affiliation and on air campaigns to 
deflate and demote any competition.
    We can see it in every market Home Entertainment, News Media, 
Computer Software. If they want control of a certain market, then 
they can have it. Without regards to the quality of the product.
    We as consumers need to have a level playing field to base or 
decisions on the product.
    I suggest one, deny Microsoft the right into other areas like 
television media, gaming media, etc Make them focus on creating a 
good OS and Software for that os. I liked the idea of breaking the 
company up into two companies that seems like it could work.
    I hate and have no understanding of the idea that Microsoft 
would pay 1.3 or 1.8 billion to poor people in the form of computer 
education. Sounds like a Microsoft training camp to me. I don't want 
to get malicious here, but it seems like Microsoft is controlling 
what even the justice department is doing, and that makes me scared.
    The problem with their current state is they are going above and 
beyond that. Using their control over the computer industry to 
establish control over others and you the government. I am not 
scared, but I should be. 
    Christopher A. Manjoine
    Senior Systems Analyst
    Research Information Systems
    The University of Iowa
    2 Gilmore Hall
    Iowa City, IA 52242
    Voice: 319-335-3019
    Fax: 319-335-2130
    Email: [email protected] 



MTC-00013372

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Madam, sir,
    I am not a U.S. citizen, but I do hope that you will consider my 
opinion to be valid nonetheless, for I am as much affected by 
Microsoft's monopolistic parties as if I was american.
    I work with computers everyday. More than a job, they are a 
hobby--I often play the role of technical support for friends and 
family (my aunt actually called me for some info as I was writing 
this). Although only 32 years old,
    I have bought my first computer in 1983, and have own at least 
one ever since (I currently have 3 at home). I have been following 
the Microsoft Anti-Trust trial(s) since the very beginning, with 
great interest. Like many others, I do believe that MS has engaged 
in monopolistic activities. I also believe that their practices have 
led to a general stagnation in the quality of their product. 
However, it would be a difficult feat to effectively remove this 
monopoly, since they have become a de facto standard, especially 
with their OS (operating system) and Office suite of productivity 
software. It is their overwhelming market share, more than the 
quality of their product or their ruthless business tactics, that 
have made their monopoly unaissailable as far as desktop computing 
is concerned.
    Therefore, I do believe that the only suitable punishment to 
Microsoft (and they do need to be punished, otherwise they will 
continue with their unfair practices) is also the only one that has 
a chance of slowly reversing the perverse effects of their monopoly 
on healthy competition: to open up (i.e. release to the public) the 
entire source to the Windows API (application program interface) as 
well as the proprietary format of their office suites. Since these 
have become de facto standards, they should not be the property of a 
single company, but rather public domain and overseen by the 
appropriate government agencies. This will let other companies 
compete on a level playing field with Microsoft: other OSes (such as 
GNU/Linux) will be able to run software designed for Windows (such 
as MS Office) and Office suites from other companies will better be 
able to better integrate with that of MS, increasing their 
usability.
    Everyone wins in such a scenario: individual consumers will have 
access to better, cheaper software, competitors will have a better 
chance of putting out viable software products, and large 
organization that have to rein in their IT budgets (such as 
government agencies) will be able to switch to open-source OSes 
(Linux, FreeBSD) and still use Microsoft's Office program. Even MS 
will benefit in the long run--though they might lose sales at first, 
they will be able to concentrate on providing quality productivity 
software instead of managing the monstrous code of MS Windows all by 
themselves. By open-sourcing their OS (or at least the API), they'll 
benefit from the large community of voluntary programmers that 
already contributee to the rapid rise of Linux, Apache, OpenOffice 
and other successful open source projects.

[[Page 25766]]

    Thank you for your time,
    ?lie Charest
    Game Designer
    Artificial Mind & Movement
    www.a2m.com



MTC-00013374

From: JTM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My ``public comment'' on the Microsoft antitrust settlement will 
probably be ignored since it's clear the DOJ has its own agenda, 
which is to allow MS to continue its monopoly. That is abundantly 
clear from the laughable proposed settlement recently turned down by 
a judge. Suffice to say, the DOJ is not doing its job, which is to 
protect the consumers from abusive companies like MS and promote 
competition, which is good for all involved, even MS in the long 
run. Oh well, perhaps when the adminstration changes again, the 
American public will get a DOJ that stands with them instead of the 
monopolists in this country.
    Sincerely,
    Tai Morris



MTC-00013375

From: pat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:07am
Subject: microsoft settlement
Pat Nye
14 Christopher Hall Way
Yarmouth Port, MA 02675
January 17, 2002
United States Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    I am writing this letter today to show my support for the 
settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice last November. The settlement will provide a necessary boost 
to our struggling economy, and also places restrictions on Microsoft 
that were necessary.
    Microsoft has agreed to reveal internal information about their 
Windows operating system to competitors. They will also design 
future versions of Windows to provide a mechanism to make it easy 
for computer makers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. This will open the IT industry up to more competition, 
which will spur the economy.
    All in all, the settlement is fair to all parties involved. 
Microsoft will still have the ability to lead the industry, but the 
industry will be much more competitive. I fully support this 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Nye
    cc: Representative William Delahunt



MTC-00013376

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:18am
Subject: (no subject) Settle the Microsoft case!



MTC-00013377

From: Andrew Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I1m very disappointed that the Justice Department has sold out 
to Microsoft. I1m angry that a company can be found guilty of anti-
trust laws, and then just told ``don1t do it again.'' If our entire 
country1s justice system worked like this, we would be living in a 
state of anarchy. History has proven that warnings, consent decrees, 
and laws to restrict anticompetitive behavior just do not work with 
Microsoft.
    To quote from Scott Rosenberg1s article at
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/11/02/microsoft--
settlement/index.htm l
    It's important to remember that this entire lawsuit arose out of 
the ashes of the failure of a previous consent decree to rein in 
Microsoft. Applying ``behavioral'' remedies once more at this late 
stage is like giving the class bully a mild lecture and then turning 
him loose in the schoolyard.
    I find the proposed settlement to be upsetting, ineffective, and 
an injustice to the American people. I1m sure you1re finding that 
many of my fellow Americans agree.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Miller
    Eau Claire, Wisconsin



MTC-00013378

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:20am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    enough already; let's liberate the intire industry and get on 
with progress.
    paul s. smith



MTC-00013379

From: Rutherford, Ronald
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings. This is just a quick note to express my opinion that 
the
    Microsoft settlement, as it currently stands, is unacceptable 
and should be vacated. Microsoft has been found guilty of antitrust 
violations and should pay a much stricter penalty for those 
violations.
    Thank you.
    Ron Rutherford
    Seattle



MTC-00013380

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day.
    I develop software for many different platforms including Sun 
platforms. Though there are restrictions that have been imposed on 
OEMs and ISVs by Microsoft, I believe that overall, what is 
delivered by Microsoft via Windows operating systems, (including 
server platforms), is a great benifit to us, the consumers. I feel 
that the products of Microsoft encourage the use of personal 
computers for everyone. They make it easy and inexpensive for 
regular people (the consumers) to become technically suave. I do not 
agree that Microsoft products (operating system), are harmful to 
consumers or restrict the rights or abilities of users to choose.
    I believe that the federal government is over stepping its 
bounds when it begins to interfere with the everyday business of any 
company.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Gergen
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013381

From: Guillaume Family
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Aloha,
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you.
    I am not sure any punishment can repair the harm that Microsoft 
Corp. has inflicted on its competitors. The real harm that has been 
done though was to stifle the industry as a whole. I believe 
Microsoft Corp. has smothered innovation through their monopolistic 
practices, which is the real shame. From what I have heard through 
the media Microsoft Corp. seeks to install their software in our 
public schools as penitence. This is an insult to the public. There 
innovating idea is nothing more than a guise continuance of their 
illegal practice. If anything there punishment should include 
support for struggling entrepreneurs. Please do not let them greater 
market share in the educational market as a punishment; that would 
be a reward.
    Once again, thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph W. Guillaume



MTC-00013382

From: Hans Lambermont
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware

[[Page 25767]]

manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Hans Lambermont



MTC-00013383

From: Ian Walters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:30am
Subject: DOJ- Microsoft proposed settlement
    Attached please find a letter to Attorney General Ashcroft for 
filing with the court, in support of the Microsoft settlement.
1007 Cameron Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
telephone
(703) 836-8602
facsimlle
(703) 836-8606
www.conservative.org
OFFICERS
Chairman
David A. Keene
First Vice-Chairman
Thomas S. Winter
Second Vice-Chairman
Donald J. Devine
Secretary
Jameson Campaigne, Jr.
Treasurer
Marc Rotterman
DISTINGUISHED DIRECTORS
Sen. Jesse Helms
Rep. Duncan Hunter
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Jeffrey Bell
Charles Black
Morton Blackwell
Beau Boulter
L. Brent Bozell, III
Floyd Brown
Murielol Coleman
Becky Norton Dunlop
M. Stanton Evans
Alan Gottlieb
Camille Kampouris
James V. Lacy
Wayne LaPierre
Michael R. Long
Robert Luddy
Sen. Serphin Maltese
Cleta Mitchell
Joseph A. Morris
Grover G. Norquist
Tom Pauken
James Arthur Pope
Ralph Reed, Jr.
Ron Robinson
Allen Roth
Craig Shirley
Lewis K. Uhler
Kirby Wilbur
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Christian Josi
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
January 16, 2002
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    ACU has, in the past, repeatedly requested that the Department 
of Justice an( Microsoft settle their ongoing federal litigation. We 
were, therefore, very encouraged to learn that a proposed settlement 
has been reached and after reviewing its terms, we believe it to be 
in the public's best interest.
    It is clear that the benefits of settlement far outweigh any 
potential benefits that could be realized through continued 
litigation. In general, the settlement of this case would allow 
Department of Justice resources to be redirected to other law 
enforcement needs--to include antitrust enforcement--and would bring 
certainty to the computer technology industry, its economic markets, 
competition and employment.
    A review of the settlement itself shows that it contains 
provisions that penalize Microsoft for past conduct, regulate its 
future conduct, and provide for enforcement of the settlement. The 
enforcement mechanism provides that any person can notify the 
Department of Justice, the States, the Technology Committee, or the 
Compliance Officer of information indicating a violation of any 
provision of the settlement. Furthermore, the settlement establishes 
a Technology Committee comprised of three computer experts that have 
access to and can inspect Microsoft documents and personnel for the 
purpose of insuring compliance with the settlement. If the Committee 
finds evidence of a violation, it is obligated to immediately inform 
the Plaintiffs who, in turn, can seek compliance through the courts. 
In addition, the settlement requires Microsoft to appoint an 
Internal Compliance Officer whose duties include educating Microsoft 
employees on the settlement provisions and their responsibility to 
adhere to the settlement's provisions.
    Established 1964 . . .  The Nation's Oldest and Largest 
Grassroots Conservative Oreanization As Charles James, head of the 
Justice Department's Antitrust Division testified: ``[t]he proposed 
decree contains some of the most stringent enforcement provisions 
ever contained in any modem consent decree.''
    Accordingly, we ask that you provide this letter to the Federal 
District Court in support of the revised proposed final judgement 
that settles the antitrust claims brought against Microsoft. 
Sincerely,
    David A. Keene Chairman
    Established 1964 . . .  The Nation's Oldest and Largest 
Grassroots Conservative Organization



MTC-00013384

From: Felicity Marsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is time to accept this settlement. You have already assisted 
afew companies to screw up the economy in their own interests for 
long enough.
    F. Marsh



MTC-00013385

From: Mike Sebahar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/17  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be required to release all information about 
their Windows APIs as well as file formats for it's Office 
application.
    This is the only way to allow true competition and innovation. 
Not their idea of ``innovation'', which is stealing other companies 
technology and changing the APIs so the competition's product 
breaks. And they should be carefully watched by a third party. 
Otherwise you have waisted all the taxpayers money on this anti-
trust suit because they will weasel out of anything else. --
    Mike Sebahar
    Halligan & Associates
    203 N. Wabash
    Suite 500
    Chicago, IL 60601
    [email protected]
    www.halligan.com



MTC-00013386

From: Don C. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow Microsoft to donate $1 billion worth of 
computers and software to schools as part of its settlement. That 
would unfairly infringe on Apple Computer's share of the education 
marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Don Smith



MTC-00013387

From: Malcom (Art Dept)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Make Microsoft's API calls available for the public. Let them be 
a standard for computing calls.
    Let true competition reign.



MTC-00013388

From: Marat A. Denenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I was informed that the Justice Department is accepting 
comments on the Microsoft Corp. settlement/case. I just wanted to 
drop you a line and tell you that from my perspective, the entire 
fiasco was nothing more than a farce. Antitrust legislation was 
never meant to provide the Justice Department with an excuse to 
harass monopolies. Instead, its intent has always been to stifle 
stagnant market behavior. How in the world can one perceive the 
computer operating market as stagnant? Not only are new iterations 
to popular operating systems released yearly, but there are plenty 
of alternatives as well. Among them: Macintosh OS, BeOS, FreeBSD 
Unix, SunOS, Solaris, Linux (and all its incarnations), and of 
course Windows. But that's not all . . . most of the time previous 
versions of operating systems compete with current ones. To make a 
long story short, perhaps the Justice Department should pay less 
attention to the whining of competitors who provide inferior 
products and more to the task at hand, which happens to be law 
enforcement.
    - Marat

[[Page 25768]]



MTC-00013389

From: Jim Weise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The terms of the proposed settlement of the Microsoft case seem 
fair and reasonable. I hope that DOJ will follow through and end 
this matter ASAP. We don't need to have government specifying how 
software is designed. In addition, It's disgusting to see that this 
issue was instigated by competitors of Microsoft and their political 
supporters.
    The use of antitrust laws to disable market competitors calls in 
to question the rationale for such laws. We need to consider some 
serious changes.
    Jim Weise
    14102 Chagall
    Irvine CA 92606
    714-402-6718



MTC-00013390

From: William A. Ogden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day,
    Since college in the mid seventies, I am and have been a 
computer industry professional. Starting with main frame computers I 
moved to microcomputers in the late seventies. During the 
intervening years, I have been involved in programming solutions in 
FORTRAN to BASIC, from dBase IV to FoxBase, and from MS Access to 
FileMaker Pro. Working with CPM, Apple DOS, MS/DOS, Mac OS, and 
Windows, I provided a variety of professional computer services. I 
have designed, implemented and maintained network architectures. I 
have setup and maintained e-mail servers, file servers, web servers 
and many other network based services. I feel well qualified to 
comment on the proposed agreement between Microsoft and the United 
States Justice Department.
    In the early days, I watched as Microsoft brought a level of 
professionalism lacking in much of the microcomputer industry. Their 
products, such as ``Microsoft's CPM Card'', were well thought out 
and implemented. Later, their GUI windowing products for the Mac OS 
were some of the best of class. Developed and available years before 
Microsoft Windows became popular, in the early nineties.
    However since the mid to late eighties I have seen a change in 
Microsoft's professionalism. Rather than present products based 
wholly upon merit, which they did in the beginning, they began using 
questionable tactics to eliminate their competition. These 
questionable tactics, eventually found illegal by the courts, have 
eliminated my ability to choose which product I deemed best.
    Watching the Microsoft anti trust trial during the last few 
years, I have been fascinated by the ups and downs of the case and 
also frustrated by it's lack of progress. I have followed the 
trial's proceedings in the news and have read many of the published 
legal papers. I am amazed by the number of times Microsoft's 
representatives twisted words and meanings in their testimonies, 
giving all observers, including the judge, an impression of deceit.
    Now Microsoft is guilty of breaking the law. The trial court 
said so and the Appeals Court affirmed it, unanimously 7 to 0.
    And that takes us to the recent agreement between Microsoft and 
The Justice Department. Where, after reading the settlement 
agreement, I find no penalty and no punishment for Microsoft. Does 
this mean Microsoft is exempt from the Rule of Law?
    What I do find is the Agreement regulates Microsoft's behavior, 
much like the agreement in 1994 where Microsoft consented ?to 
refrain from anticompetitive bundling and licensing of its Windows 
operating system.? (CNET News.com-September 25, 1997) And of course 
it was Microsoft's ignoring this decree that gave rise to the anti 
trust case. And even if the intent of today's Proposed Agreement is 
followed honestly and ethically, Microsoft's past successes using 
these, proposed banned, behaviors make any behavioral remedy moot. 
All effective competition has been eliminated, so how are behavior 
limitations on Microsoft going to jump start competition? Plus the 
Proposed Agreement puts Microsoft in charge as all competitors are 
under the requirement ?that the licensee?(c) meets reasonable, 
objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the 
authenticity and viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at 
its own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation 
or Communication Protocols to third-party verification, approved by 
Microsoft. . .?.(section J 2(b),(c)) And even Microsoft could not 
meet the requirements under section J 2(a) of the Proposed 
Agreement. ?``Microsoft has demonstrated time and again that through 
their sheer power and immense wealth, they can easily evade 
behavioral remedies designed to constrain their unlawful activity,'' 
said Edward J. Black, president of the Computer and Communications 
Industry Association, which backs Microsoft's corporate 
adversaries.?
    (www.nytimes.com/2001/09/07/technology/07LOBB.html)
    Let me finish by asking the questions. How can any settlement 
with Microsoft be just five years? Particularly when section D 
requiring disclosure, and section H, of the Proposed Agreement does 
not require Microsoft's compliance for a year. How can any law 
breaker, proven and affirmed to be so in a court of law, not be 
punished? If you have enough money and you burn someone's house 
down, we let you go if you promise not to do it again. How can we, 
as a country based on the rule of law, allow a company proven to 
have broken that law, benefit from their crime and there be no 
material consequences.
    I ask you to please find a way to bring fairness and open 
competition back to our industry. Let new ideas find a fertile 
environment to flourish. Please let the market place, not 
Microsoft's special interests, determine what software products and 
internet services I purchase and support.
    Thank you,
    William A Ogden
    Director of Technology / Network & Technical Manager
    [email protected]
    The Prairie School
    4050 Lighthouse Dr / Racine, WI 53402
    Phone: 262-260-6808
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013391

From: Mark Kinzie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those concerned with the Microsoft Settlement,
    I have been working as a software engineer for 20 years, and 
understand why Microsoft has the power to push others from the 
market, stifle competition from innovative companies, and to 
eventually gain control of nearly all uses of computers and 
communications: they have complete control over a resource that the 
vast majority of software written today is completely dependent on--
the Windows API.
    Microsoft controls the operating system that all other 
application software developers are dependent on. But Microsoft also 
develops applications. This gives Microsoft extraordinary 
advantages:
    1) Microsoft can change the API, forcing all competitors to 
scramble to change their applications so they will still work with 
the new API.
    2) Microsoft can use their knowledge of what the new API is 
going to be (knowledge that no competitor has) in order to be first 
to market with applications that work with the new API.
    3) Microsoft has knowledge of the operating system that no one 
else has--essentially, part of the API that no one else can see or 
use. How can others compete when they don't have access to the same 
resources?
    These advantages have allowed Microsoft to take control of the 
major types of application software in use: Office productivity 
software, Web browsers and email. Regarding their application 
software (in particular, Office), their control over the data 
formats of the software give them the same kind of advantages as 
control over the OS API's. For example: these days, if you're 
looking for a job, you need to be able to send your resume to 
prospective employers though email. Your resume essentially has to 
be in Microsoft Word if you want them to be able to read it (Word 
alone costs $339.00). The competition's less expensive word 
processing software will claim to be compatible with Word (they have 
to), but it's not completely compatible because they don't have an 
established standard to write to. Microsoft controls the de facto 
standard, changes it at will, and is the only company that 
completely understands it.
    Microsoft must open up it's API's and data formats so that all 
can play on a level playing field. This must be done in such a way 
that the unfair advantages described above are no longer in place. 
It might be argued that this unfairly causes Microsoft to forfeit 
some of it's intellectual property, and that the advantages listed 
above are not unfair and anti competitive. But Microsoft is a 
monopoly controlling critical resources. I've often tried to come up 
with an allegory to

[[Page 25769]]

explain the situation that Microsoft has to non-software people. I 
was never able to find an allegory that fits, and I finally realized 
why. It's because software is different than anything that's ever 
come before. We've just never had anything that is really like 
software that runs on a computer. You just have to learn about how 
software works to be able to understand the Microsoft situation. I'm 
concerned that there are not enough people in decision-making 
positions in the Department of Justice (or in Congress or the White 
House for that matter) that really understand how software is built. 
It's a crucial matter that is only going to grow more important as 
time progresses.
    Thank you,
    Mark Kinzie
    The opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of 
the Johns Hopkins University. --
    Mark Kinzie
    Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
    [email protected]



MTC-00013392

From: Brian Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like my comments on the proposed Microsoft Anti-Trust 
settlement added to the official record of public comments. As the 
person in charge of Information Technology for a 500 person company, 
I have not been happy with Microsoft's business practices for some 
time now. They have kept their software prices the same or higher, 
while everyone else in the industry has lowered their prices over 
the past five years. I believe that they have been able to do this 
because of their monopoly position in the market for both operating 
systems as well as internet browsers.
    Due to their monopolistic actions, I believe that Microsoft 
needs a stronger remedy than the one proposed by the US DOJ. I 
believe that the proposal put forth by the States that dissented 
from the US DOJ settlement proposal is a more appropriate remedy. As 
a consumer of many, many Microsoft products, with little choice to 
change, I urge you to consider a stronger remedy than the current US 
DOJ remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Clark -- ----------------------------------
    Brian Clark
    Vice President
    Information Technology
    BrannWorldwide
    20 W. Kinzie, Suite 1300
    Chicago, IL 60610
    http://www.brann.com
    312-494-8500 tel.
    312-494-8501 fax



MTC-00013393

From: Darwin Campa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, 
OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, 
hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT 
boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly 
timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other 
things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed 
Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead. Yet OpenGL support still 
survived due to the interest of software developers and the support 
of third party 3D hardware manufacturers. This latest move by 
Microsoft to acquire core 3D technology patents would finish the 
hatchet job, granting Microsoft the power to force third party 3D 
hardware manufacturers to drop support for OpenGL, and ultimately 
stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
    Darwin Campa
    Enthusiast
    darwin campa
    [email protected]
    ICQ  15104121



MTC-00013394

From: Alain Birtz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement >>>>
    The Justice Department settlement is currently in a public 
comment period mandated by a law known as the Tunney Act. Through 
Jan. 28 the public is invited to send in comments on the proposal. 
>>>>
    My suggestion: get the 1.3 billon offer by MicroSoft and give 
this money to Open Source community.
    Thank you.



MTC-00013395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the Microsoft settlement proposal. I also feel 
this never should have been a matter for the State and Federal 
governments to be involved in and the amount of tax dollars spent to 
prosecute this matter is ridiculous. These tax dollars could be 
better spent on needs of the American people instead of lining the 
pockets of greedy lawyers.



MTC-00013396

From: Michael Caughill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    From my understanding, the proposed Microsoft Settlement seems 
more like a Trojan horse to help Microsoft dominate one of the few 
markets they currently don't completely own: the education market. 
As any dictator will tell you, if you want to control people's minds 
you start when their minds are the most malleable. Childhood is when 
we form our earliest impressions. Do we really want to ``punish'' 
Microsoft by giving them unfettered access to our children's minds?
    I don't think so. And I fervently hope not.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Caughill
    Third Person, Inc.
    205 West Highland Ave.
    Suite 308
    Milwaukee, WI 53203
    T: 414.221.9810 F: 414.221.9812



MTC-00013397

From: Ronnie Davidson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm in favor of the settlement and an end to litigation. Thank 
you.



MTC-00013398

From: Newman Alan-P20582
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I am a software engineer who has designed software products for 
commercial and defense companies, using every Microsoft operating 
system since version 1 of PC/DOS extensively, and have similar 
experience with older and newer desktop operating systems. For four 
years, I was a Microsoft ``Partner'' developing under a Non 
Disclosure Agreement to Microsoft tools to be used in conjunction 
with Microsoft Word. I had great concerns that the grossly unfair 
practices by Microsoft that I had personally witnessed, but was 
forbidden to discuss per the NDA, would not come out during the 
recently completed antitrust case. Primarily for that reason, I have 
read most of the transcripts and rulings published on the DOJ 
website (listed at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms--index.htm> ). Surprisingly to me, 
most of my concerns regarding Microsoft unfair business practices 
were adequately expressed in the trial.
    I was very pleased that in spite of what appeared to me as gross 
obstruction of justice by Microsoft exposed during the trial 
(unbelievable faulty memories, doctored video evidence of lab 
experiments, memos planted in the ``wrong'' hands, etc.) that Judge 
Jackson was able to clearly separate misconduct in court from the 
facts pertinent to the case, and found both his Findings of Fact and 
Findings of Law completely accurate to everything I know about the 
case. I assume that addressing such probably criminal behavior in 
court should and will be addressed separately.
    I am now disgusted beyond words by the near total lack of 
appropriate punishment, deterrent, and victim compensation in the 
latest DOJ settlement with Microsoft. It seems

[[Page 25770]]

to be less than a slap on the wrist to a company who I believe is a 
severe detriment to the software industry that I work in (non-
competitively with Microsoft). I believe past and present Microsoft 
behavior is an excellent example of precisely what our antitrust 
laws were meant to protect the US economy and citizens and 
businesses from, but are failing terribly to do so with the current 
settlement offer.
    Please do what you can to retract the current offer, and, at the 
very least, restore some semblance of deterrent to the settlement of 
this case.
    Alan Newman
    7411 S Rita Ln, #110
    Tempe, AZ 85283



MTC-00013399

From: Richards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that allowing Microsoft to give it's products 
to schools is in the best interest of the public. The school system 
is the only area where Microsoft does not enjoy a monopoly. I 
believe that a ``cash'' penalty is required, which would allow the 
school system to spend the money as they wish.



MTC-00013400

From: Tim Cramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must say that I'm very displeased with the current settlement. 
I may be biased as I work for a competitor to Microsoft, but the 
settlement is a mear slap on the wrist and offers no real benefit to 
consumers. In section III, prohibited conduct, you state that 
Microsoft can still offer discounts, market development allowances, 
& programs as long as they are ``uniformly available'' to all OEM's. 
It is not difficult for Microsoft to come up with ways of making 
things unattainable except to their ``friends'' such that they can 
receive the large discounts. Quite possibly, anyone offering non-
Microsoft OS's will sell fewer Window's licenses and fall from the 
Top10 or Top20 volume group and lose their discount.
    In sections D/E Microsoft needs to disclose ways of 
interoperating with Windows, but that doesn't mean ``all'' the ways. 
Frequently, what Microsoft has done is have ``secret'' API's that 
they use internally which are much more reliable or fast, thus 
gaining on the competition. The only way to truly know the APIs is 
to force Microsoft to publish the source code, something they are 
completely unwilling to do. I don't believe that this judgement goes 
nearly far enough to protect us from the Microsoft monopoly. Now 
Microsoft moves to take over the internet with it's .NET 
architecture, seeking to grab a percentage of every transaction 
taking place on the internet and holding private records for 
everyone with a Passport account (which all HotMail users have to 
have as well as anyone who get's Windows XP, eventually everyone). 
Microsoft has serious security breaches on a nearly weekly basis, I 
would love an alternative to .Net/Passport and I hope we get one, 
but it won't happen while Microsoft destroys all competition.
    Tim Cramer
    21601 W Lochinvar Ln
    New Berlin, WI 53146
    262-446-4931



MTC-00013401

From: Chuck Stolt
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  12:03pm
Subject: antitrust
    Microsoft has consistently abused its monoply position to harm 
competition. The US government has spent a lot of taxpayer money in 
order to prove this in a court of law. Now, close the deal and 
punish Microsoft in a just way. Microsoft is an important company, 
no doubt, but they cannot be allowed to continue with their current 
business practices. Allowing them to give software to the schools is 
not right. Apple has traditionally been in that market and you would 
effectively be pushing them out of the market. You are playing the 
way Microsoft plays and that is not right. You must come to a 
decision which punishes Microsoft. Judge Jackson saw Microsoft for 
what they were and now it is time for the corrent judgement.



MTC-00013402

From: CAHARLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    My wife and I are l00% behind the agreement that Microsoft made 
with the Department of Justice and nine states. The agreement is 
fair and it is time that we settle this debate. Microsoft has been 
the forerunner in its field, and we see no reason to jeopardize a 
fantastic company. In most free countries of the world, companies 
are subsidized by their governments. Microsoft is a free 
enterprise--has tremendous wealth-- and innovation. Technology is 
changing on a daily basis and if want to continue our lead in this 
arena, we must let Microsoft innovate and get on with their 
business. We have not been hurt one bit by Microsoft's innovation 
and products. We remember only too well the nightmare before Windows 
was introduced. We believe that the settlement is in the public 
interest. Do not listen to those other competitors who would destroy 
Microsoft as a viable company. Thank you for your time.
    Mr. Joseph Iacono
    Mrs. Linda D. Iacono
    2l86 Graystone Drive
    Sumter, SC 29l50



MTC-00013403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I think the proposed settlement stinks. The other 9 states have 
come up with a far more reasonable proposal, though I think it still 
lets Microsoft off way too lightly. Their objections to the 
alternate proposal amount to, ``But we thought we weren't going to 
actually be *punished*! This is punitive!'' Please. . .  That's the 
*whole point*! Make them sorry they violated the law, so they don't 
do it again. With the DoJ settlement proposal, Microsoft is not 
punished in any way; instead, they continue to profit from their 
misdeeds.
    Chris Buxton
    PS: Do you need any identification from me, such as evidence 
that I'm a US citizen? Of course, anything sent electronically could 
easily (very easily) be faked, but I thought I'd ask.



MTC-00013404

From: Gannon Timothy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 17, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hope that the United States Department of Justice will 
reconsider the decision to settle the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
and follow the lead of the nine state attorneys general who have 
rejected this decision to let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist 
for its monopolistic practices.
    Numerous consumer groups disagree with the decision to settle 
because they know Microsoft has not been given any serious reason to 
change any of its practices. Price gouging of consumers will 
continue. The market will continue to lack choices for consumers. 
Consumers will doubly suffer as they pay more in an uncompetitive 
market, while the executives of Microsoft move from being 
millionaires to billionaires thanks to monopolistic profits.
    I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the 
other eight state attorneys general see the many problems with an 
agreement that does little to affect change in the computer software 
industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three companies may not be 
the proper response, but neither is this.
    Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a mistake. A real opportunity exists for the Department of Justice 
to take a stand and protect not only consumers, but also our free 
market society. Whereas the agreement does nothing to protect 
neither consumers nor smaller companies striving to compete, further 
litigation could effect real change. Please continue to go after 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Gannon
    2834 Forest Dr.
    Des Moines, Iowa 50312
    CC:Iowa Attorney General



MTC-00013405

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be forced to make the codes for all of their 
software open. Until programmers can make software that works under 
both Windows and other operating

[[Page 25771]]

systems, there will be no real competition for Microsoft.
    David A. Hunt
    Trinity, NC



MTC-00013406

From: AGDCK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:36pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
To: Dept. of Justice
From: AG & Delorice Kessinger
Subj.: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  
    The penalties being placed on Microsoft is a disservice to 
``Free Enterprise'', also, a disservice to the world. The companies/
States that are crying should be told to go home and ``think of a 
better way''. If the Gov't, DoJ, etc want to get onto something or 
make a name for themselves, they should go after the ``Cable/Elec/
Water Companies'', now there is a monopoly. Everyone is at the mercy 
of their rates/rules/etc.
    Microsoft has gone out of their way to make the cry babies 
happy, but nooooo, some just want more out of an Enterprising 
Company.



MTC-00013407

From: Jim Applebaum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ms.,
    I believe the proposed DOJ settlement with Microsoft is just and 
should be implemented as soon as possible.
    Thank you,
    Jim Applebaum



MTC-00013408

From: dmason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:29pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I say get off Microsofts' Back. There Software, Hardware, or 
whatever made it Easier for an Oldman on the High Side of 77 to 
Learn to Operate A Computer !
    Dale Mason. The Above referred to OLDMAM



MTC-00013409

From: Steve Wiedemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional who deals with many platforms in the 
multimedia space, the behavior of Microsoft is, in my view, highly 
anti competitive. The entire industry outside of Microsoft 
understands that products based on interoperable standards is the 
key to developing better technologies. All developers may contribute 
to technical advances as long as the platform remains agnostic, or 
at least not hostile to a chosen technology. Individuals and 
companies can compete on a fairly level playing field with the 
knowledge that users can take advantage of technical advances. 
Everyone can contribute to our technical landscape and the consumer 
will see the benefit.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft sees every technology it doesn't own as 
competition that must die. To that end, they have the power to 
manipulate the platform [which should be standards agnostic] to 
cripple or disable the software offerings of their perceived 
competitors. Microsoft does understand that new technologies not 
originated by them have a market and they will offer a [generally] 
crudely inferior substitute for the competing software, thus 
redirecting the channel of demand to go to Microsoft's door, 
rendering competing technologies irrelevant and damaging the ability 
of the user to obtain the performance they seek.
    New technologies are either purchased by Microsoft or killed 
off. If a cross platform technology is purchased or co-opted by 
Microsoft, most of the cross platform functionality is stripped away 
to ensure the dominance of Windows and the irrelevance of anything 
else. If a technology cannot be purchased by Microsoft, a simple 
change to their operating system or the [now] bundled browser will 
ensure their version of a similar technology will be as good as it 
gets.
    Microsoft is moving away from interoperable standards as fast as 
they can. They have already significantly damaged the ability to use 
technologies like QuickTime, the crown jewel of multimedia, and are 
working to replace it with the laughable Windows Media Player. Since 
Microsoft's software integrates very well within Windows, whatever 
media formats Windows Media Player cannot handle, Internet Explorer 
or Windows itself will take over thus requiring the complete Windows 
environment to do things formerly done with the highly agile cross 
platform QuickTime. As a result, developers write software that 
speaks specifically to Windows integration which slowly pushes 
better technologies aside. Since Microsoft makes it very clear which 
technologies will succeed and fail on the Windows platform, 
developers have no choice but to develop to the system that ensures 
success. In effect, Microsoft is dictating
    what technologies developers may and may not use, not based on 
any written orders but on Microsoft's actions designed to pave the 
road to their sole success. Developers who tow the Microsoft line 
are handsomely rewarded. Developers who do not will find themselves 
struggling to open avenues of opportunity. This is technical 
censorship to the benefit of one company and at the expense of the 
better world it could be. The Microsoft .NET strategy is intended to 
render the Internet useless for anyone not using a complete 
Microsoft sanctioned technology chain. Their goal is for anyone not 
using Microsoft products to see a blank screen on the Internet which 
would be a tragedy beyond belief. They are using this precious time 
while the courts are tied up with delays to entrench these Microsoft 
specific technologies and entrap millions of individual and 
enterprise users in their net.
    Don't let this happen. It is up to the courts to do the right 
thing. Break Microsoft into pieces where each division will 
contribute the good parts of their software to a standards based, 
interoperable world. Deny Microsoft the ability to leverage Windows 
to force the rise of their own products at the expense of better 
technologies and better user experiences. Microsoft will perform 
better as a company and will serve the industry better if they 
broken up and are forced to become less self interested. Otherwise, 
we are doomed to sink further into a mediocre technology landscape. 
--
    Steve Wiedemann
    Sr.VP, Director of Technology
    Henninger Media Services
    703.908.4018
    http://www.henninger.com



MTC-00013410

From: Brad Werth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I earn my living as a software professional. Over the course of 
the last seven years, I have found my creative options more and more 
limited as Microsoft products dominate various parts of the software 
marketplace. My preferred operating system, database, word 
processor, and web browser have all inevitably been subverted by 
inferior Microsoft replacement products. In order to do my job I am 
quite literally forced to use Microsoft software which is less 
suited to my needs as a software developer. There is no choice in 
the software market. The proposed DoJ and nine-state settlement will 
do nothing to remedy this situation. The original remedy proposed by 
the Clinton-era DoJ and the eighteen state Attorneys General would 
be much more effective.
    Please push for a breakup of Microsoft. I want to be able to 
choose the tools for my job.
    Thank you,
    Brad Werth
    [email protected]



MTC-00013411

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Judge:
    It is imperative that you send the PFJ back to the DoJ to 
correct the most glaring mistakes (of which there are many).
    We in the software industry are counting on you.
    Thanks.
    Gregory Slayton
    Gregory W. Slayton
    Chairman of the Board
    ClickAction Inc
    http://www.ClickAction.com
    Direct Line: 650-463-3944
    Assistant: Dawn Scardina--650-463-3912
    Fax: 650-473-3646
    Non nobis Domine



MTC-00013412

From: Dave Tharp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:44pm
Subject: harassment of microsoft
    It is time to stop harassing Microsoft for being an innovative 
company that tries to expand into other areas of the related 
technologies. The settlement which was presented and accepted by 
many of the litigants is more than fair to them and acceptable, 
though not necessarily fair to Microsoft. It is time for those 
companies who live in the shadow of Microsoft's innovative 
enterprise, due to their own lack of same, to

[[Page 25772]]

quit whining and settle! I strongly urge the Department of Justice 
to require the remaining companies to settle so innovation in 
technology may continue!
    Sincerely,
    David Tharp
    19400 n. Westbrook Pkwy
    #142
    Peoria, AZ 85382



MTC-00013413

From: Erin Baccus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is important that Microsoft as well as its 
competitors are able to design, create, and market software as they 
can. I don't work in the high tech industry, but it doesn't take a 
genius to realize the importance this case holds. Microsoft just has 
better products, not unfair practices. Please settle this lawsuit 
once and for all and put our tax dollars to fighting something the 
country really cares about.
    Erin Baccus
    [email protected]



MTC-00013414

From: Robin Colgrove
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sure you are getting a lot of mail, so I will be brief.
    I am writing to oppose in the strongest terms the current 
settlement proposal. Its remedies are incredibly weak and depend 
entirely upon the goodwill of Microsoft for implementation. 
Microsoft has already made it clear from its flouting of previous 
settlements that it has no intention of complying voluntarily with 
restrictions on its behavior. Even its public statements have made 
it clear that they have not even accepted their guilt in this 
matter, despite being convicted, having -some- of the counts upheld 
unanimously on appeal, and having the convictions be allowed to 
stand by the Supreme Court. I think it is outrageous that a company 
found guilty of multi-billion dollar crimes should be allowed to 
negotiate about whether and in what fashion it should be penalized. 
This can only increase the perception that the law exists to hammer 
the poor and that sufficient wealth can buy one a free pass to 
violate the laws of one's choosing.
    It is sometimes said that Microsoft's actions have only helped 
consumers and that the legal cases against them come only from their 
competitors. This is grossly untrue. I have been using computers for 
over twenty years and use on a daily basis computers of all types 
including Windows, UNIX, and Macintosh machines. Microsoft's 
practices of monopoly lock-in hurt me every day. Over and over, 
whether in access to hospital clinical data, NIH grant applications, 
presentation results, and many other types of data, I find I am 
forced to use Microsoft software, even though I don't like it and 
don't want it, not because it is better, but simply because it has 
an illegally-maintained monopoly. It has taken me enormous effort 
and resources over the years to keep my laboratory running in the 
face of the constant pressure to conform to the Microsoft standard. 
Since this monopoly has been found to be maintained and extended 
illegally, this represents substantial harm to me and to millions of 
people like me.
    There are many examples of great harm caused by the Microsoft 
monopoly (the squashing of innovation, the forced cycle of 
``upgrades'', the loss of consumer choice, etc.), but I want to 
comment on one area where I have special expertise: viruses. I am a 
virologist and have studied both real and computer viruses for many 
years. In the mid-90's, many of us warned that the Microsoft 
practice of embedding automatically executable programming scripts 
into its programs (first Excel, then Word, then Outlook/Exchange, 
and now XP and .Net) posed a serious security risk to users in that 
they could be used to write software viruses. Again and again this 
has proved all-too true with one virus after another and billions of 
dollars in damage done. This is not the place for a technical 
discussion, but though no system is perfectly safe, these viruses 
are far, far easier to create and spread using Microsoft software 
than with UNIX/linux or macintosh alternatives. Virtually all the 
significant virus damage in the past decade has come from easily 
correctable flaws in the way Microsoft makes its software. Microsoft 
does not correct them because the intertwined web of embedded auto-
executing code is an important mode by which they achieve customer 
lock-in and monopoly maintenance/extension. No one would put up with 
this level of customer abuse except that people and institutions 
feel they have no reasonable choice but to use Microsoft software. 
No company could have gotten away with this except one with an 
illegal monopoly. For this reason alone, Microsoft deserves large 
and serious penalties. Many good ideas have been advanced for 
improving the proposed settlements. I want to emphasize two. First, 
one of Microsoft's key tools in illegal monopoly maintenance has 
been to use secret file formats and undocumented ``API's'' 
connecting to other programs, making it very hard for competitors to 
write compatible software. As part of any reasonable settlement, 
Microsoft must be forced to make all its file formats and API's 
public at the time the software goes on sale. Microsoft complains 
that this would strip them of intellectual property but this very 
tellingly misses the point that they have been found guilty and have 
earned large penalties for themselves. Second, there must be rapid 
and serious enforcement of any settlement provisions. The court 
record shows very clearly how Microsoft has worked to subvert 
earlier agreements and in so doing they have lost the chance to have 
a settlement based upon good will.
    Microsoft is at present a company with an adolescent character, 
arrogant and self-absorbed, unconcerned with the harm that they 
cause others. They will not grow up by choice. Like previous 
monopolists (such as IBM) or would-be monopolists (like Intel), they 
need strong Justice Department pressure and the real threat of 
further serious penalties in order to mature as these other 
companies have done. As others will point out, Microsoft is a 
product of vigorous anti-trust action (against IBM, who otherwise 
would have absorbed them in the '80s), and is a champion of 
government intervention in the market (in intellectual property 
protection). It is typically juvenile of them to claim exemption 
from anti-trust law now, and is exactly why the Justice Department 
needs a much stronger and more strictly enforced plan for any 
settlement that will truly be in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Colgrove MD
    Division of Infectious Diseases
    Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
    Harvard School of Medicine



MTC-00013415

From: Joseph Sitoyen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope the Microsoft Settlement truly rememdies the anti-trust 
nature of Microsoft's dominance of the operating system and software 
market. In order to ensure that they receive more than a slap on the 
wrist, a meaningful action must be taken which will ensure 
competitiveness. Any settlement must require Microsoft ``to 
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications (another key to Microsoft's 
monopoly ``lock-in'')--with the express goal of allowing competitors 
to build Windows software applications, and operating systems, that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field,'' as Scott Rosenberg has 
previously stated. Such a requirement would truly make the Anti-
Trust Division worthy of its noble origins.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Sitoyen
    Cheyenne, WY



MTC-00013416

From: Charles A Schuster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Please get off Microsoft's back and let them 
help the economy grow.



MTC-00013417

From: Joshua Gramlich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the DoJ's settlement with the Microsoft 
corporation is wholly unacceptable and an egregious error. The 
proposed settlement has no ``teeth'' and will only result in further 
damage to the American consumer, damage which Microsoft has already 
inflicted upon us for years.
    Never mind the anti-trust suit, implications of tax evasion have 
come to the attention of the public with the idea that Microsoft is 
refusing to pay dividends to its stockholders because of the 
enormous tax payment they would have to make on such dividends.
    You tell me why a company that has $18 billion in CASH is not 
paying dividends.
    Microsoft has continually perjured themselves in Federal Court, 
flagrantly disregarded the rulings of said court, and

[[Page 25773]]

now, the DoJ seems to be willing to let the most monopolistic 
company since Rockafeller's Standard Oil off the hook.
    What gives?
    Joshua Gramlich
    3505 N. Seminary Ave. #2
    Chicago, IL 60657



MTC-00013418

From: K. Payne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I've been reading online of Microsofts' recent purchases of 
OpenGL technology. I am VERY disturbed about the potential problems 
of this. They have been working against OpenGL ever since they 
started developing directX and direct3d. I'm sure MS would love to 
kill all 3rd party efforts in the 3d graphics world so their new 
xbox and similar technologies can totally dominate the planet. 
PLEASE DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN!!!! Kenneth Payne (B.S. in C.S.)



MTC-00013419

From: Stephen J. Lemmons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    For a new of years I have been watching Microsoft, its products, 
and the way it conducts business. I've also followed the 
``Monopoly'' court action along with the various proposed 
settlements. Based on what I have observed, I would like to submit 
the following comments.
    1. Over the years in many court actions, Microsoft has agreed to 
settlements with promises to discontinue its various inappropriate 
actions/conduct. In each instance, when things have quited down, 
they returned the very same conduct that cased the legal action to 
be filed. Their promises and signed legal documents mean nothing to 
them.
    2. If they can't get a company to license a feature from their 
copyrighted software, if possible, Microsoft tries to purchase the 
company. Case in point; FoxPro, Inc. After purchasing FoxPro, 
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates stated in an interview for Database 
Advisor, that Microsoft would continue to produce FoxPro for DOS 
(that would at that time have been FoxPro 3.0 for DOS). To date this 
program still hasn't seen the light of day.
    3. Despite court orders to ``Unbundle Internet Explorer'' from 
the Windows Operating System, Microsoft to this date has refused to 
do so. In fact, several of their software packages will not install 
unless you allow them to put Internet Exployer on you PC.
    4. A new software manufacture started up in September or October 
of 2001. They are offering an alternative to Windows. At Christmas 
time, Microsoft filed a lawsuite allegeding trademark infringement 
due to the company's name and its products name. The names are easy 
to distinguish between.
    I have read both the federal goverments proposed sanctions 
against Microsoft and the proposed santions by the states that 
disagree with the federal goverments. In both cases, the boat has 
been badly missed. These sanctions are nothing more that the same 
type of things done previously with Internet Exployer and in other 
cases against Microsoft where they continued to what they wanted, 
placing themselves above the law. There is only one way Microsoft 
can be brought back in line and made to follow the law like the rest 
of us; that being a split up into at least two, if not three 
separate companies. One would develope and produce operating 
systems, another would develope and produce internet browsers and 
server software and the last would develope and product productivity 
software such as MS- Word, MS-Excel, MS-PhotoDraw, etc. Failure to 
bring Microsoft back in compliance with the law will have a major 
negative effect on the development and production of new software 
and hardware.
    Respectfully,
    Stephen J. Lemmons



MTC-00013420

From: David R. Plas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in reference to the U.S. government's anti-trust 
action against Microsoft. I strongly support the position of the 
Dept. of Justice that Microsoft exerts monopoly power in the 
computer software marketplace. I also agree that splitting up 
Microsoft is not the proper mechanism for dissolving the monopoly. 
However, the goal of the government must be to find a way to prevent 
Microsoft from leveraging its control over the Windows OS into 
domination of other areas of the software market. To this end, I 
strongly support forcing Microsoft to publish all API's of any 
current OS on the market, and 3 months in advance of any future 
release of the Windows OS. Publication of the Windows APIs would 
prevent Microsoft from possessing an unlawful advantage in the 
fabrication of software that runs within the Windows OS. In effect, 
Microsoft would be forced to behave as two separate companies: one 
with rights to modify the OS as it pleases, and another that must 
work with the published tools provided by the OS to compete with 
other companies in the development of software. Assuming Microsoft 
competed well in the marketplace, this remedy would benefit the 
company by insulating it from further lawsuits concerning anti-trust 
matters. It would also have obvious benefits for the public and 
competing companies. Whatever remedy you do pursue, please do not 
try the previously failed tactic of behavior modification combined 
with fines. These don't work for any aggressive company, and have 
already failed in the Microsoft matter. Take a decisive step to end 
this harmful monopoly.
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these issues.
    Yours,
    Dave Plas



MTC-00013421

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my mind the most un-American thing the US Government has ever 
done was to bring the suit against Microsoft. One thing this country 
seems to have a problem with is the American Dream. Bill Gates has 
lived it and the government can hardly wait to crush him. The 
lawsuit was stupid. If there was a better operating program than 
Windows the inventors should put it out there and let the free 
market decide. Some did and the market decided. They wanted Windows. 
I want Windows. I want the Federal government to leave Microsoft and 
Bill Gates alone. Stop trying to kill the American Dream. If the 
Clinton Administration had been putting its efforts in the correct 
places 911 would never have happened. But it was too busy trying to 
crush Bill Gates and Microsoft. End the whole thing.
    Kathleen Webb
    3108 E. Sierra St
    Phoenix, AZ
    602-971-5541



MTC-00013422

From: Powell Billy Contr WRALC/LBR
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recommend that case be settled and not further litigated. The 
current agreement with the 9-states is tough, reasonable, and fair 
to all parties involved. Let's put an end to the unreasonable 
demands still being pushed by the remaining 9-states.
    Billy Powell
    2712 Highway 96
    Fort Valley, GA 31030



MTC-00013423

From: J. Scott Houchin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Here are my comments on the Microsoft Settlement. The number one 
goal for the settlement should be to restore a competitive 
environment where multiple competitors are able to effectively 
compete to provide application and operating systems products to the 
consumer. The settlement must allow Microsoft's competitors to do 
three things:
    To write applications that run on Microsoft Operating Systems 
with equal access to the power and services of the operating systems 
as do Microsoft applications - To create alternate operating systems 
that will run applications written for the Microsoft operating 
system just as well as those applications run on Windows - To create 
applications that can interchange data and files with Microsoft 
applications with 100% interoperability There can be no compromise 
on this issue, as this is the root of Microsoft's illegal 
exploitation of a monopoly position.
    While it is possible to debate a specific solution that meets 
the requirements I listed, I personally believe that there is only 
one valid solution that will truly restore a healthy competitive 
environment: -Microsoft must be forced to publicly document all 
application programmer interfaces (API's) to the

[[Page 25774]]

Windows operating system (both current versions and future versions) 
and to network accessible products (such as a .NET servers or IIS). 
The scope of this disclosure must include all software libraries and 
compiled software that ships with any Microsoft operating system or 
server product, regardless of whether Microsoft considers that 
software element a core part of the product, or part of an included 
add-on service.
    - Microsoft must be forced to publicly document all file formats 
used by its operating systems and application and server products 
(i.e. the Microsoft Word .doc file format). This will allow users of 
third party applications to easily and interoperably exchange data 
with users of Microsoft applications.
    - A license to use any relevant intellectual property (with 
respect to the API's and file formats) must be given to any software 
developer on a royalty-free and non-discriminatory basis.
    - There should be no set duration to these restrictions on 
Microsoft behavior, the restoration of a healthy competitive 
environment is dependent on the hard work of third-party providers 
and the willingness of the buying public to purchase third-party 
products. The government should consider removing these restrictions 
only if (through the hard work of third-party developers) Microsoft 
loses their monopoly position.
    Only with all four of these elements would a third party 
developer be able to create an alternate operating system or 
application that complete on a level playing field with Microsoft 
products.
    An added benefit to this solution is that, for Microsoft to 
maintain their monopoly, their efforts must be focused on creating 
products that are truly better than those of their competitors. For 
example, if I could purchase a third-party operating system that ran 
all of my existing Windows applications and read all of my existing 
files, but never crashed, Microsoft would need to also make 
modifications to their operating system to reduce the amount it 
crashes. Even if the majority of people continue to purchase 
Microsoft product, the buying public still wins, as we are provided 
with better products.
    Once a settlement has been reached, a method to oversee the 
implementation and compliance with the settlement must be put in 
place. While some may believe that a specific oversight committee 
that works with Microsoft will solve the problem, I believe that in 
the end, that solution will be overly expensive to the public (in 
terms of tax dollars used to support the committee) and will not be 
effective.
    I believe that the best possible oversight committee is the 
general software development public. As was proposed a few years ago 
by a columnist in InfoWorld magazine, I believe that the best way to 
ensure that all API's and file formats are properly documented is to 
post a reward, payable by Microsoft, for any developer that 
discovers an API or file format feature that has not been publicly 
documented. A suitable starting reward would be US$10,000,000, 
payable to the developer himself (or maybe to a non-profit 
organization of his or her choice) upon confirmation by a government 
appointed oversight committee. This reward would increase for every 
additional API for file format feature that is discovered (i.e. 
discovering hidden API number i requires a reward of US$10,000,000 
times i).
    The benefit of this solution is great:
    - The actual work to verify the documentation of API's and file 
formats will be spread across a very large number of people, for 
which doing this work is in their own best interest, by ensuring 
that they are able to complete.
    - The monetary penalty is large enough to be significant given 
the current financial position of Microsoft, especially if multiple 
hidden API's are discovered.
    - The cost to US taxpayers would be minimal, as the only work 
that would be required by a government appointed oversight committee 
would be to verify the discoveries of the public.
    In addition, as the US government works to give final resolution 
to the Microsoft issue, please remember that Microsoft was found 
guilty of illegally exploiting their monopoly position, and that the 
guilty verdict was upheld by the Appeals court. In effect, there 
really is no settlement, in that the law does not require that 
Microsoft be allowed to provide input on their punishment. The US 
government, through the justice system, must put in place a solution 
that serves the best interest of the US public at large, which in 
general will mean that it is not in the best interest of the 
Microsoft Corporation.
    I have great fear that by allowing Microsoft to pick their own 
punishment, we are setting a very dangerous precedent for future 
cases, both civil and criminal.
    Thank you,
    J. Scott Houchin
    42 Sunny Mill Lane
    Rochester, NY 14626-4440 --



MTC-00013424

From: James Gowans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:40pm
Subject: Renata,
    Renata,
    It is good news to hear that the settlement on the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit will be coming to an end. Please consider this 
letter a letter of support for the settlement. It is time to help 
the technology back on its feet and start the innovations and ideas 
coming again.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Gowans, Representative
    Utah House of Representatives



MTC-00013425

From: Anne Schwartz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please find attached my letter concerning my thoughts about the 
US Department of Justice's current lawsuit with Microsoft. I would 
greatly appreciate your reading it and consider my point of view as 
you finalize matters with this case. If you or your staff or 
colleagues have any questions or remarks about the attached letter, 
please feel free to contact me.
    Thank you in advance for your help and consideration with the 
Microsoft settlement.
    Sincerely yours,
    Anne D. Schwartz
    8200 Wisconsin Avenue, Apt. 604
    Bethesda, MD 20814-3168
    Phone: 301-656-1313
    E-mail: [email protected]
8200 Wisconsin Avenue, Apt. 604
Bethesda, MD 20814-3168
Phone: 301-656-1313
Email: [email protected]
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please hear my opinion on the settlement of the Microsoft Anti 
Trust Case. I applaud the government for taking the steps to end 
this long, drawn-out lawsuit. My hope is that you will make the 
right decision and uphold the proposed settlement. I believe the 
settlement is more than fait and addresses the issues alleged in the 
lawsuits and then some. Microsoft is promising to utilize less 
aggressive business tactics in running their company. Additionally, 
they have agreed to share some of their technology information, 
including the intellectual property they have in the Windows 
internal interfaces and server interoperability protocols. There are 
more details to the settlement, but most importantly, I understand 
that the settlement will restore fair competition to the computer 
industry. Please maintain the current settlement and set a good 
example for the remaining states that are pursuing litigation in 
this matter. By doing so, you will help our American economy and 
American computer industry begin to flourish again. Thank you for 
your kind consideration.
    Sincerely yours,
    Anne D. Schwartz



MTC-00013426

From: Eric Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Let me begin by saying that the proposed settlement involving 
donations to educational institutions is like handing Microsoft a 
golden ticket on a monopolistic train ride. But more on that later. 
First, I think a ``Competitive Market Advancement'' plan should be 
included in the settlement. This would require Microsoft to fund 
development in other computing companies, namely Apple Computer and 
Sun Microsystems. A donation of $250 million to $1 billion to each 
company would seem appropriate. Such funds would allow these 
companies to take on the staff and fund the research and development 
required for true technology advancements. I believe that only when 
these two much smaller companies have greatly superior technology 
will they be able to compete with Microsoft.
    I chose Apple because it is the only true competitor to 
Microsoft in the consumer and

[[Page 25775]]

education markets. The core of Apple's new OS X operating system, 
Darwin, is open source and freely modifiable by third-party 
developers. Apple's operating system also attempts to ``play nice'' 
by being compatible with both Windows and Unix environments. Sun 
Microsystems competes in the server and programming language 
markets. Sun's high-end servers match anything from Microsoft. But 
the real value in Sun stems from the Java programming language. The 
language was designed from the ground-up to be platform agnostic. 
For the most part, I can take a java application in a .jar file and 
transfer it from Mac OS X to Windows to Solaris to Linux. It is such 
flexibility that gives consumers choice and wouldn't bind them to a 
single computing platform because of software needs.
    Secondly, I am very worried about Microsofts recent acquisition 
of Silicon Graphic's (SGI) patents on 3D graphics technology. OpenGL 
and many underlying technologies have been transferred to 
Microsoft's control. The result is that Microsoft may eliminate 
OpenGL, the freely open graphics library, for its own Direct3D 
proprietary graphics library. It may even use incentives to graphics 
card manufacturers that force them to drop OpenGL support for 
Direct3D. Also affected would be Apple Computer (which embraces 
OpenGL at the core of its operating system) and countless video game 
companies, such as Electronic Arts, Nintendo, and Sega.
    Now, on to the current settlement. Essentially, low-income 
schools would be granted computing equipment and software from 
Microsoft.
    Suddenly, Microsoft's share in the education market increases. 
Wasn't the settlement supposed to penalize Microsoft for unfair 
market dominance? How are these schools ever going to afford a 
competing platform? Especially given the ``deals'' on Microsoft 
software/Intel hardware versus the sideline concessions for Apple 
products? Such a settlement connotes, ``Please continue your 
monopoly, Microsoft, and as a gift, please take more of the 
educational market you've found difficult to crack in the past.''
    If any settlement terms include education, they should be for 
financial grants only, thus allowing the schools themselves to 
decide on the computing equipment they need. No special deals on 
Microsoft-only products should be allowed.
    Thank you very much for your time, and I hope to see a fitting 
resolution to this case soon,
    Eric Bailey
    1020 Sevier Ave.
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00013427

From: sanford toole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Lets settle up and allow the techies to get on with productive 
work and life. We've kicked this around long enough.



MTC-00013428

From: milo ness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft case should be settled and very soon. 
Microsoft has offered wonderful proposals to settle the case and a 
settlement will be a BIG help to the economy.
    Milo D. Ness



MTC-00013429

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    It would seem to me this suit has gone on long enough, and due 
to the extreme problems and pressures the nation is now facing, 
should be settled. I wonder if these 9 states are just holding out 
for ``big bucks'' and are not looking at the ``whole picture'' 
relative to how ``we'' people should be spending ``our'' time. I 
think Microsoft has made sufficient concessions, accommodations and 
commitments, which seem to be more than fair, to satisfy the 
``aggrieved''. Please help the nation get on with the more important 
tasks at hand!!!
    Marilyn Raupe
    2312 So. 119th Plz.
    Omaha, NE 68144
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013430

From: Harding Bob-ra7777
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  1:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on the PC operating system 
market, as well as the integrated Office software suite and the 
internet related software. The only effective resolution for the 
current case is a settlement that requires that Microsoft make the 
intellectual property for the API code available to developers/
companies, so that these other enterprises can have a fair 
opportunity to develop products that can interface with the Windows 
operating system and compete with the entrenched products that 
Microsoft produces. The consumer can then be the judge, to determine 
if Microsoft really produces a better product, or if another company 
offers a similar product at a better price, or a better product at a 
similar price.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Bob Harding



MTC-00013431

From: Alex Whitney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I'm sure Microsoft employees are stuffing this box with 
propaganda, as they have reputedly demonstrated their willingness 
and capability to do so, so I have little hope of being heard, but I 
must speak out against MS/DOJ settlement proposal.
    It is objectionable: they are a company of thugs, and are not 
doing anyone, not our country, not our diversity of technology, not 
our economy--any favors with their anticompetitive practices. This 
rapacious lot of doe-eyed ``what, ME?'' wolverine monopolists 
severely limits the number of good choices I have in hardware and 
software through their vast, rich, well thought out range of both 
blatant and subtle anti-competitive practices.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to stop this criminal 
activity. And, they make you look bad, by getting away with it. 
Right now, they are squeezing my company for cash via software 
licenses like the mafia; quietly pushing UCITA through state 
governments--how they are getting key individuals to pass this piece 
of bogus legislation will come to light, I'm sure--and are quashing 
creative, innovative work that could make us competitive 
internationally for years.
    Microsoft is a bunch of monopolists, with knowledge aforethought 
and criminal intent. It was so obvious to the judge handling the 
case that he frankly was overwhelmed--he simply couldn't contain his 
outrage. That's no reason to call off a lawsuit and hand Microsoft 
the keys to the kingdom. A more effective remedy would be one that 
required Microsoft to standardize and publicize the entire set of 
Windows APIs and the file formats of its Office applications 
(another key to Microsoft's monopoly ``lock-in'')--with the express 
goal of allowing competitors to build Windows software applications, 
and operating systems, that compete with Microsoft on a level field.
    Such a plan would require careful oversight and enforcement, 
since Microsoft could easily engage in all manner of foot-dragging. 
If Microsoft set out to be uncooperative, it could release the API 
information slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or in a ``Good 
Soldier Svejk'' fashion-- assiduously following the letter of the 
court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit. (There's 
precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved during the 
trial when it told the court that, sure, it would supply a version 
of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but gee, 
sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.) It would include some penalties: 
you violate this agreement, you consent to being broken up into 
three companies, each with all of the Windows source code and a 
third of MS's developers, on a judge's ruling.
    I can already hear them howling in protest. Its too bad that 
their lawyers are so good at beating up your lawyers. . .  For all 
of us. These are the people you are supposed to protect us from, and 
I would appreciate it if you would do a better job. I know I don't 
have as much money as they do, but that's not supposed to count, hm? 
Get 'em, boys! Its a hard fight, but our country needs them to step 
back even if their ego won't let them fight fairly. They don't even 
fight fairly with you, do they?
    --Alex Whitney
    Vice President, Director of Technology
    Cline, Davis & Mann
    110 East 13th Street
    New York City New York, 10003
    (212) 907-4348



MTC-00013432

From: Michael Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25776]]

    Dear Sirs
    I feel this is the opportunity to express how strongly I feel 
about the Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel if this Settlement goes through as proposed it is way to 
linient on Microsoft. I feel for all of their steamrolling over 
smaller companies with their policies demands harsher fines against 
Microsoft. How they destroyed netscape is just one of many examples 
of the brute (unfair9 forse Microsoft has exersized over many 
companies over the past few years.
    Please do not let them off the hook so easily.
    A concerned U.S. citizen.
    Michael S. Thompson



MTC-00013433

From: Bob Tarabella
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement will 
result in any penalty to Microsoft Corporation. In fact, it would 
appear to give them a strong foothold in one of the only competitive 
markets that they do not yet dominate. The proposed settlement is a 
bad idea.
    Robert Tarabella 450 N Mobile St
    Fairhope, AL 36532
    251-928-7876 (h)
    251-990-3558 (w)
    360-838-9046 (fax)



MTC-00013434

From: David A. Molanphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    To whom it may concern;
    On your website you request input on the Anti-Trust case against 
Microsoft. Although I am not well versed in law I do know what a 
monopoly is, and Microsoft fits the description better than any 
textbook example I've ever seen. For Microsoft to propose a 
settlement enabling them to expand their monopoly into the education 
sectors is, in my opinion, a joke. Granted, their offer to help the 
less-privileged school districts in our country is a commendable 
one, but it seems more like they're trying to use this as a 
publicity stunt! Let's open our eyes a bit! If Microsoft really 
wanted to help education, they would provide the monies to the 
school districts for them to use at their own discretion! Providing 
a license of Windows to these schools is hardly a punishment! It's a 
boost in their business! It costs Microsoft less than a quarter to 
copy a disc containing their software! How is this supposed to break 
up and discourage a monopoly? I must say that I am sick of throwing 
money into Microsoft's mediocre operating system, horrible service, 
and I'm especially sick of wasting my tax money on settling this 
matter, when it is so obvious that they ARE a monopoly, and have NO 
intention to stop their unlawful practices.
    Sincerely,
    David A. Molanphy
    [email protected]
    http://www.molanphydesign.com



MTC-00013435

From: BRIAN D SMITH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel it is about time to settle this matter for all 
concerned. Let's do it!
    Christine and Brian Smith



MTC-00013436

From: Ralph Mabb
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having read the facts of the case it is apparent to me that 
Microsoft is & always will be a monopoly, bent entirely on 
dominating the OS market as well as the PC market. They use 
underhanded tactics as well as illegal marketing practices to drive 
away competition. Look at what they did to Apple! Windows was stolen 
from Apple. So as far as I am concerned its about time they paid. 
Make them settle for Billions, make it count and make sure there are 
safeguards put in place to prevent further tampering in the market 
by Microsoft.
    Thanks
    R. Mabb



MTC-00013437

From: Susan Secrist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:06pm
Subject: Yes--
Microsoft Settlement
To: The
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
    We are writing to be counted among the many American citizens 
who are asking for a quick and fair settlement in the lawsuit 
against Microsoft. We have followed this case closely and believe 
that the CURRENTLY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT addresses the legitimate 
findings of the Appeals Court. Further delay and/or punitive action 
would undermine not only our economy, but the underpinnings of 
jurisprudence.
    Please settle now.
    Thank you,
    Daniel and Susan Secrist
    5125 39th Ave SE
    Lacey, WA 98503



MTC-00013438

From: Ben Loftis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I am submitting this letter in response 
to your request for ideas about the Microsoft antitrust case. In my 
opinion, Microsoft is trying to stifle new competition by raising 
the cost of entry into the operating system market. In addition, 
they are using their monopoly to ``lock'' consumers into only using 
Microsoft products. Both of these practices are damaging to 
consumers. Unfortunately there are already multiple examples of the 
effectiveness of these practices. BeOS, for example, was a much more 
sophisticated and reliable product, but it was unable to compete in 
the desktop OS market because most potential customers were locked 
into the Windows monopoly.The two most offensive practices are 
proprietary file formats created by the operating system and their 
unwillingness to allow other operating systems to coincide with 
Windows on the same machine. By bundling common software packages 
into Windows (email, word processing, html, media files), and then 
using proprietary file formats, Microsoft has guaranteed that the 
majority of users will be dependent on Microsoft products to read 
and edit their own, personal records! As a user of multiple 
operating systems, I can personally attest that Microsoft makes it 
nearly impossible to share basic documents between other operating 
systems.
    Because Microsoft invents their own formats instead of using 
standard formats for these basic file types, they raise the cost of 
switching to a new operating system so high that most users aren't 
willing to switch from Windows.The ``boot issue'' is also important. 
If an amateur user tries to install Windows in addition to an 
existing operating system, he will find that Windows has overwritten 
the Master Boot Record of the boot disk, apparently making the 
previous operating system, and all it's data, disappear! Although 
this condition can be reversed, it can be very disconcerting to a 
casual computer user, and it makes the prospect of installing a new 
operating system too scary for most people to contemplate. This 
results in far fewer sales for competing OS developers. I suggest 
three straighforward solutions to these problems: 1) Require that 
Microsoft use open-source file formats in any products that are 
bundled with the operating system, or available as free downloads 
from Microsoft. (note: this does NOT include Microsoft Office!)2) 
Require that Microsoft publish the format of all previous documents 
that were generated by software that was bundled with Windows. 3) 
Disallow Windows to overwrite the Master Boot Record of a disk 
unless the operator explicitly agrees to do so. These solutions 
would not incur undue cost to Microsoft, nor are they technically 
infeasible. They simply help make sure that future versions of 
Windows will ``play well with others'' and not trap consumers into 
using Microsoft-only products.
    Thank you,
    Ben Loftis
    301 Honey Ct Nolensville, TN 37135



MTC-00013439

From: fouts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my feelings about the settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. Honestly, I thought the whole thing was 
ridiculous to begin with, but seeing as Microsoft is satisfied with 
the settlement that has been arrived at, I won't reopen old wounds. 
It does cause me some concern, however, that the impending threat of 
further litigation exists. I am shocked that the nine states that 
are considering such action have the gall to suggest that the 
settlement was in any way unfair to Microsoft's competitors 
Microsoft agreeded to a very wide spectrum of terms in the 
settlement, some of which

[[Page 25777]]

were not even at issue in the antitrust case, simply in the interest 
of wrapping up the suit. Intellectual property rights are to be 
licensed to competitors, the Windows operating system is to be 
reformatted to support non-Microsoft software, and Microsoft has 
agreed not to take normal retaliatory measures against anyone who 
introduces directly competing software onto the market.
    I believe that justice can demand no further satisfaction from 
the Microsoft Corporation. The Department of Justice needs to let 
the settlement carry through and move on. I urge you to please 
support the agreement so they can do so.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara L. Fouts
    3634 Kassandra Drive
    Punta Gorda, Florida 33950



MTC-00013440

From: Anna Angelova
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to you to voice my objection to the Proposed Final 
Judgment in the U.S. vs. Microsoft anti-trust case. I believe that 
the Proposed Final Judgment does NOT properly address Microsoft's 
anti-trust violations and anticompetitive practices. I strongly feel 
that Microsoft's monopoly should be terminated and future such 
monopolies be prevented. A monopoly can be devastating for the 
development of a fast-paced industry, such as the software industry. 
Therefore, I am concerned with the Proposed Final Judgment and hope 
that you will reconsider the ways in which you approach the 
Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Anna Angelova
    505 W 54 street, apt. 1119
    New York, NY 10019
    (212) 954-7289



MTC-00013441

From: Andrew Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:14pm
Subject: A fair future for Microsoft.
    IMHO, the problem stems from MS being unclear on the distinction 
between operating system and software applications in its business 
model. How about this: the OS side of Microsoft must have freely 
available APIs and no OS feature development be tied to any 
application being co9ncurrently developed by MS. Not quite open 
source, but so that any developer can access any or all of the OS1s 
features. The application development side of the Microsoft can be 
as secret as they please, since in effect they would be nothing but 
a developer for their own OS.
    As new capabilities are added to the OS side of MS, they must be 
made available to all developers, including MS1s application 
development, simultaneously. No cooperation between application 
development and OS development sides of the business. Eliminate the 
hand-in-hand development of applications and OS features that 
support them. MS1s advantage is that it had a head start in 
developing applications that take advantage of its own OS1s 
features. Take away that head start and it is nothing more than a 
company that sells an OS , as well as some applications for that, 
and other, OSs.
    For example, the MS applications side make a ``feature request'' 
to the OS side. So can any external developer. The OS side adds or 
changes the OS to accommodate any or all developers1 requests. A new 
OS version is released, with equal access to new features by all 
developers. Then, and only then, can the application side of MS can 
develop software versions to take advantage of the new OS. At the 
same time, so can other developers. Equal competition by all 
developers, and ``freedom to innovate'' is retained. Developers can 
write for MS, or any other OS for that matter, on a level playing 
field.
    There you have my two cents worth. Thank you for taking the 
time.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Bradley



MTC-00013442

From: Potter, Ken
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Potter
210 John Glenn Drive
Suite 1
Amherst, NY 14228-2213
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to give my support to the agreement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. This agreement was reached 
after three long years of court battles, costing both sides time and 
money. It is time to put this issue to rest. Microsoft has agreed to 
any number of demands from the Department of Justice. Microsoft has 
agreed to help companies achieve a broader degree of compatibility 
with regard to their networking software; Microsoft has agreed to 
design future versions of Windows with a mechanism to make it easier 
for computer makers to promote non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has 
even agreed to a technical committee to monitor future compliance.
    Please support the antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Potter



MTC-00013443

From: Victor Agreda, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Put this in the category of: Microsoft should pay MONEY and be 
required to go under the government microscope for several years. 
Their proposal to ``give'' several millions of dollars ``worth'' of 
software to schools is an insult to intelligence. This obviously 
extends their monopoly further.
    Better yet would be to provide a substantial cash payment to an 
oversight organization, which would in turn distribute these funds. 
Microsoft would then be watched very carefully for other non-
competitive behaviors. However, an even better solution would be an 
actual reversal of their monopoly. That would entail Microsoft 
purchasing competitor's products, and installing them (according to 
the oversight org), AND providing monies to provide for training and 
upkeep of the systems. Examples would be mass purchases of Linux 
systems and Macintoshes.
    The above case would serve as a punishment to Microsoft, as well 
as an overall remedy to their past behavior.
    Good luck getting them to agree to it, however. I suggest that 
you will be lucky to actually get any money from them at all.
    Thank you all for your time and attention to this case!
    --Victor H. Agreda, Jr.
    www.superpixel.com



MTC-00013444

From: Jacob Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear US DOJ,
    I feel that Microsoft's proposed solutions are just a slap in 
the face of real justice. The Settlements that they have been giving 
are no more than a mockery of everything that justice stands for. 
When the DOJ went after IBM and maBell it didn't who this we have to 
be nice to you junk. The only solution that I see that would be fair 
to the rest of the world namingly the software developers is to 
force them into going open source. That is the only true way to 
bring justice to the software tyrant.
    I may seem a little angry with Microsoft because I am. I have 
lost many hours of sleep and even some important homework because of 
thier unfair business practices of making other poeples software no-
functional. This may only be a small puddle in the mess they have 
made out of the business world from downtime and lost profits as 
well as lost produtivity in tech support. Have you seen Mac OS X or 
Linux and other Unix variants downtime is almost a thing of he past. 
I have been running Mac OS X and Linux the only downtime I have had 
was when I had to reboot after an upgrade. This is an acceptable 
downtime. On my PC running Windows 98 I have downtime almost 
immediatly after I boot up. Blue Screens are a common occurence. 
This would not be a problem if it wasn't for the programs that the 
school I go to teaches only microsoft products because they are the 
forced standard. There is no reason for the type of problems that I 
see constantly in all the programs that Microsoft has realsed.
    Sorry enough about that little bit of background information but 
the type of problems that I see as a norm is a bad thing that kills 
this nations effectiveness in the growing business world.
    To sum everything up the only solution to fixing Microsoft's 
harmful business practices is to either force open-source or to null 
the company all together. To back up the nulling the company look at 
all of the standards that they have tried to force onto the computer 
world. For example the WMA format and the

[[Page 25778]]

all of a sudden lack of support for MP3's in Windows XP. Microsoft 
act like the lack of MP3 support as a way to help the record 
industry stop pirating music. With the evil recording industries 
trying to make it impossible for little guys like me run copies of 
CD's in things like my car so I can keep the original in good shape.
    How about the active X form of JAVA that Microsoft has been 
trying to make as a standard. Which cause problems when other non 
active X supported web browsers and this to me seems like a form of 
browser prejudice. Like the little browsers like opera a really good 
freware browser that doesn't run active X because it is not the true 
standard of the web.
    Now in finally ``this time I am not kidding'' The only solution 
to ending thier riegn of poor coding and badly written software I 
feel open-source is the best solution.
    Young voter,
    Jacob L. Larson
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00013445

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it is HIGH TIME to have the nine State Attorney 
Generals to go home. Realizing they have $$ dollar signs $$ for eye 
balls to cloud there better judgment will in no way help the 
consumer more than Microsoft has already agreed to do. They (the 
attorney generals) have had enough headlines. I'm sure they have 
plenty of work to do in there own states to keep busy. ENOUGH IS 
ENOUGH.
    James W. baker
    543 Silver Pass
    Ocala, FL 34472
    [email protected]



MTC-00013446

From: Eric L. Strobel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is woefully inadequate when compared to 
the damage the Microsoft monopoly inflicts on this nation. Let us 
reduce this to a specific example of the impacts of Microsoft's 
stranglehold on desktop computers, impacts that have never even 
entered into consideration (as far as I know).
    I am a physicist working at a defense contractor, and I simply 
don't ``get'' Windows. I find it almost impossibly difficult to use 
because it just doesn't work in a way that makes sense to me. 
Instead, I use Apple Macintosh computers (although this argument 
logically also applies to OS2, BeOS, Linux, and any OSes that might 
have been were it not for Microsoft's anti-competitive practices). 
Now, in a fully competitive environment, my chosen OS might be in a 
minority, but would still be considered an acceptable alternative. 
However, due to Microsoft's continuing history of predatory and 
illegal practices, they have achieved an almost total monopoly. In 
my case, I am SEVERELY limited as to potential employment 
opportunities because the Federal Gov't. and its contractors have 
largely standardized on Microsoft (to the exclusion of any 
alternatives, which in the case of the Federal Gov't I thought was 
illegal). This standardization was done, in large part, because 
``Everybody uses Windows, so if we must standardize on one OS, it 
should be Windows.'' I'm sure the problem is obvious. . .  
``Everybody uses Windows'' because Microsoft's illegal practices had 
absorbed, crushed, or marginalized the competition.
    What Microsoft has achieved vis-a-vis other OSes, it has now 
also achieved (though to a lesser degree) in the realm of web 
browsers. Netscape has all but been buried by Microsoft in terms of 
vigorous competition which would lead to rapid product enhancement 
and ultimately, to consumer benefit. This must not be allowed to 
stand, but yet the fundamental weakness of the proposed settlement 
does exactly that.
    I strongly urge you to put some teeth back into the sanctions 
against Microsoft. Even while the process of the proposed settlement 
was going on, the world saw Microsoft arrogantly proposing a 
settlement in another set of cases which would have actually 
INCREASED Microsoft's monopoly! They MUST be taught a lesson! Their 
monopoly status means there's no competitive pressure to improve 
their products, resulting in untold billions of dollars of losses to 
the US economy due to reduced productivity. And, as you can see from 
my personal example, the potential is there for Microsoft's monopoly 
to do tremendous damage to individuals as well.
    Lastly, regardless of the outcome, I also can't urge you 
strongly enough to open an investigation into the Federal 
Government's IT practices and how these have contributed to 
Microsoft's continued monopoly, even while DOJ was pursuing an anti-
trust case against Microsoft. Any settlement with Microsoft will 
ring hollow while the Federal Government continues to bolster 
Microsoft's monopoly status.
    Thank you.
    Eric Strobel
    Dr. Eric Strobel
    12601 Dulcinea Place
    Woodbridge VA 22192
    (703) 494-6623
    [email protected]



MTC-00013447

From: Jon Pugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a slap in the face of 
consumers and the computer industry. Microsoft needs to be reigned 
in before they completely dominate the entire industry and suppress 
all other innovation. The current administration has completely 
caved in to Microsoft. Please throw out their proposed settlement 
and let someone with some objectivity decide what should be done to 
prevent Microsoft from remaining the 800 lb gorilla of the software 
industry.
    Jon Pugh
    18306 Andover
    Edmonds, WA 98026
    (425) 640-0835



MTC-00013448

From: Pfeiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a retired Judge of a State Court for thirty-seven years I 
have never seen a party who has lost the lawsuit (having been found 
guilty of acts prohibited by law) come off with no penalty other 
than being restricted from doing what the law restricts it from 
doing in the first place. It is unfortunate that the remedy 
fashioned by Judge Jackson had to be reversed because of personal 
failings of the Judge rather than from any defect in his logic or 
reasoning.
    The court should reject the proposed settlement which has come 
about by a change in government with a different approach toward 
monopoly. Microsoft should not benefit by stonewalling until this 
change occurred and should not now be left in the same position of 
monopoly that it had before the national election. It should be 
bereft of the power to again violate the law rather than just 
promising not to do it any more. The ultimate judgment should make 
impossible further abuses of our free enterprise system.
    C. Pfeiffer Trowbridge, P O Box 445, Stuart, Fl 34995



MTC-00013449

From: Joe Gerhardstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software developer and user of Microsoft products, as well 
as Apple and various Unix/Linux products, I have been following the 
court case closely for several years. I believe the current 
settlement as proposed is a complete travesty of justice. The 
current settlement, while on the surface looking like it might 
prevent Microsoft from participating in anti-competitive actions, 
has no teeth and actually goes so far as to tell Microsoft to expand 
is monopoly by ``giving away'' it's products to educational 
institutions.
    My first major run-in with Microsoft occurred about 7 years ago 
while I was trying to write software for Windows 3.11. At the time, 
I had a need to access physical memory locations on the machine in 
order to transfer data from a high-end data-acquisition card. After 
a few days of searching their online help and discussion forums for 
the necessary API call, I called Microsoft to ask how to do this (at 
$75 for the first three calls), and was told that a competitor's C 
compiler I was using wouldn't work and I needed to purchase the 
latest version of Microsoft Visual C++ compiler, which I did. After 
several days of working with this and we were still unable to 
perform the above task, I called Microsoft back (for a fee) and was 
told that the Visual C++ compiler was not enough, and I would also 
need to pay to join their ``developers group''. When I ask whether 
this for sure would solve the problem, I was told that they couldn't 
guarantee it. In the end we finally found some references to the 
necessary API (marked

[[Page 25779]]

``don't use this as Microsoft doesn't guarantee that it will 
continue to be available in future releases'') and used the 
competitor's C compiler to build the necessary .dll.
    Through this entire process, I couldn't help but think ``Well, 
here I am being bribed by Microsoft to tell me, a person who is 
trying to develop software for their operating system, how to 
program their operating system.'' Every week I'm bombarded with more 
attempts by Microsoft to get me to buy more of their ``solutions'' 
or to give up on competitor's products and use theirs. One need go 
no further than look in the Internet Options menu on Internet 
Explorer (Tools -> Internet Options). Under the General tab, there 
are three buttons that you can use to assign a Home Page: Use 
Current (makes sense), Use Blank (also makes sense), and Use Default 
(what's default?). The last one when clicked, assigns Microsoft's 
home page. Why isn't there a button or pull-down menu to select AOL 
or Yahoo? I have yet to find a way to make the default something 
other than Microsoft's web page. Why is Microsoft the only company 
that seems to pull stuff like this? Or if you click ``Search'' in 
Internet Explorer, why is the default search engine Microsoft's? 
Other vendors, such as Apple with their Sherlock search engine, by 
default include searches from other major sites such as Yahoo, 
Google, Excite, etc.
    Every time I install Windows on a new computer, why is Microsoft 
Outlook and Microsoft Internet Explorer the only email and web 
browsers with not one, but two icons on the desktop (one on the 
desktop, one in the Start Menu tray)? When I install Apple's OS-X, I 
get Apple's mail program, but I also get IE/Outlook and Netscape 
Communicator icons with similar promenance. When I install Suse 
Linux, I get Netscape and Koncourer. Look at Sun and Java. Why does 
Microsoft insist on not only not using Java, but goes and develops 
it's own version and basically makes Java unrunnable on their OS?
    You're probably saying ``well, that isn't illegal'', and I 
agree. But why is Microsoft the only company that pulls stuff like 
that? The Justice Department has already determined that Microsoft 
acts in anti-competitive, monopolistic ways. The current court 
ruling seems to imply that the Justice Department believes that 
Microsoft is going to forget it's old ways and just start playing 
``nice''. I have seen no such change in behavior over the last few 
years even after the ruling, and have a hard time believing that the 
current weak court ruling is going to have any impact on Microsoft 
and their traditional business practices. Even if you were to stop 
the blatantly anti-competitive ways, Microsoft will continue to 
coerce users in ways slightly less illegally until the Justice 
Department stops complaining. The only way you can solve a problem 
like this is to separate the parts. Make it so one company sells 
operating systems and doesn't care who's browser or email client is 
shipped with the core OS, make another company responsible for 
Microsoft's other software applications, such as Office and IE, and 
make a third company responsible for Microsoft's Internet holdings 
(.NET, msn.com, etc.). Doing this will help (but not fully) prevent 
each part of Microsoft from favoring the others over competition. 
Doing anything less would be the same as doing nothing at all.
    In case you believe that I am just ``another anti-Microsoft 
nut'', I would say to you that I believe in the last few years that 
Microsoft has actually done some innovation. I current run Microsoft 
Internet Explorer on my Mac at home, not because Apple or Microsoft 
has forced me to or made it too much of a hassle to choose another 
browser, but because Microsoft's offering runs 2x faster than 
Netscape Navigator, has better compatibility than iCab and costs 
less than Opera. This was a choice I made that was not biased by 
Apple or Microsoft, but instead was made on the relative merits of 
various freely-competing company's products. Unfortunately I cannot 
say that same for any computer that runs a Microsoft operating 
systems.
    Joe Gerhardstein
    Joe Gerhardstein
    Senior Engineer/Systems Integrator
    DAQTron, Inc.
    1007-B Mansell Road
    Roswell, GA 30076
    770-643-1878
    770-645-6403
    (fax) www.daqtron.com



MTC-00013450

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I would like to offer my strong 
support for the settlement agreement reached in the Microsoft 
antitrust litigation. While there is much of the agreement of which 
I am not aware, I do know that Microsoft has agreed to lessen 
restrictions on the use of competitive software within Windows 
operating systems, and to promote greater uniformity in its pricing 
practices. These concessions certainly go a long way in answering 
the allegations of anticompetitive behavior brought against 
Microsoft, although I am sure complaints will remain. It appears to 
me that much of the criticism of Microsoft is the result of their 
success. I disagree with the idea that successful individual or 
organizations should be looked upon as targets of opportunity.
    I am not a dedicated fan of Microsoft products but I am sure 
that the long and drawn out litigation is distracting management 
attention. At a point in time when economic growth is so essential; 
we cannot afford to have one of our biggest economic engines sitting 
on the sidelines. Please get on with this agreement and let 
Microsoft get on with business.
    Your time is greatly appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Don Wickenkamp
    5861 Shiloh Lane
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52411



MTC-00013451

From: milo ness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Mic



MTC-00013452

From: Rick Roese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it Concerns,
    Everywhere I look I see Microsoft's hand. There is nothing 
illegal about being large, but it seems that for years they have 
used that size to influence every vendor in the industry (even 
Intel) and they show no signs of stopping. I believe everyone who 
uses computers has and will continue to be hurt be the stifled 
development of anything that Redmond does not control. And that is 
the definition of an abused monopoly. The idea of a settlement that 
``pushes'' Microsoft into the education market under the guise of a 
penalty is ludicrous. Something much stiffer must be imposed for the 
good of the computing future.
    Rick Roese
    Below is a hidden transaction describing the the transfer of 3D 
technology from Silicon Graphics and Microsoft. Again the affect is 
subtle, but cumulative and subversive. MS is not going to stop 
without pressure from the DOJ or other government agency.
    SGI transfers 3D graphics patents to MS
    By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
    Posted: 16/01/2002 at 18:03 GMT
    Exclusive Silicon Graphics Inc has transferred much of its 3D 
graphics patents portfolio to Microsoft. These form the heart of a 
mysterious transaction which showed up in SGI SECC filings last 
year, with Microsoft paying $62.5 million for unspecified 
``intellectual property'' rights to SGI. SGI insisted at the time 
these are ``non core'' technologies, but sources close to the 
Mountain View are emphatic that these represent the bulk of SGI's 3D 
intellectual property assets, a view confirmed by documents 
disclosed to The Register.
    The 3D graphics landscape is scarred with previous intellectual 
property litigation, and the Microsoft deal has its roots in an 
earlier settlement between SGI and NVidia. NVidia walked away 
bruised but with a license for key SGI technology. Unfortunately for 
the Xbox team, that didn't extend to NVidia's sublicensees and an 
eleventh-hour deal was brokered that allowed the Xbox launch to 
proceed on schedule.
    So does the Redmond deal represent good value for SGI? Well, SGI 
has had console ambitions in the past: developing the N64 for 
Nintendo, but failed to follow through in those early efforts. SGI 
has since been supplanted in the newer generation of consoles and 
has even had to adopt the PC graphics products of erstwhile rival 
NVidia. SGI shareholders will doubtless welcome the cash.
    Neither NVidia nor SGI wanted to comment on this article. SGI is 
in a quiet period pending its next quarterly results next week. 0wn 
3d? However Microsoft's acquisition of the patents has repercussions 
for not just the console business, but the future of the PC 
business, too. The question

[[Page 25780]]

of who owns the platform was one of the fissures exposed during the 
Microsoft AntiTrust trial. According to memos released as part of 
the trial, and testimony from Intel VP Stephen McGeady (who's no 
longer with the company), The Beast won a showdown with Intel that 
obliged the 'Zilla to axe its NSP multimedia hardware project.
    Microsoft isn't in the PC hardware business, and it's unlikely 
that the patents will change its technical strategy. But they do add 
significantly to its bargaining position with hardware vendors, 
giving Redmond important new leverage. Rival APIs, principally 
OpenGL, are kept alive through the support of graphics hardware 
vendors. And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining 
a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the 
advantages from continuing to support OpenGL. Now that's an area 
that the three men in a boat--the proposed MS compliance body--might 
care to examine. We'll be watching. (R)



MTC-00013453

From: Smith, Mathis
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not be allowed to get by with just a slap on 
the wrist, and that is exactly what their proposed settlement would 
be allowing. The proposed settlement would allow Microsoft to extend 
their Monopoly into markets as of yet unaffected by their business 
practices.
    Any judgments against Microsoft should be a punishment not a 
bolster to the company. The proposed $200 million that Microsoft 
says it is liable for is nowhere near $18.9 billion suggested by 
plaintiff economist. If this is to be a monetary settlement it 
should be closer to the billions not the millions.
    Microsoft's attempt to mask a settlement that is in their best 
interest behind a veil of charity, lends more evidence to the 
accusations that brought them to court in the first place. If a 
donation is to be made to these schools as punishment, that is fine, 
but it should be a cash settlement and an amount that more reflects 
the net worth of a company as big as Microsoft.
    It is my opinion that Microsoft should have to set up an $18.9 
billion fund for under privileged schools. This fund would provide 
money to those schools that need it, and those schools would be 
allowed to use the funds the way that those schools deem fit. These 
under privileged schools need more than just technology. They 
especially don't need the outdated Pentium computers running Windows 
98 that Microsoft was suggesting. Microsoft was even suggesting that 
the schools then pay Microsoft for the licensing of the software.
    To allow Microsoft to get a way with a lenient settlement would 
be a crime against the United States consumers, as well as those 
consumers affected world wide.
    Matt Smith
    I.T./Mac Desktop Analyst
    Ph# 214-977-2753
    mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00013454

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What this settlement does is reward microsoft for its fine 
ethical business practices. What is a billion dollars to MS. Or 10 
ten billion for that matter. Open souce their software- or split 
them up I can1t believe justice dept is this stupid, so it must be 
motivated by something more sinister!



MTC-00013455

From: Derek Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion. 
Microsoft's business practices during the mid nineties absolutely 
were appalling--specifically regarding their attempt to ``kill'' 
Netscape Communications, Inc.
    Their use of the ``monopolistic'' tactics to disable a 
legitimate company's primary source of income truly represents an 
injustice to the consumer.
    I applaud the DOJ's actions and proposed settlement.
    Derek Rich
    36 Greensboro Road
    Hanover NH 03755



MTC-00013456

From: A Non Moose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    My comments on the settlement are that this matter has dragged 
on for way too long and is continuing to impact public confidence in 
the economy and American competitiveness in the global market place. 
The Wall Street Journal some time back had a number of comments from 
State representatives regarding the PR exposure that they get from 
dragging the case on ? I?m surprised that the media has failed to 
take them to task further. Microsoft is a leading light for the US 
in the World Economy, if one looks at the size of the company 
relative to organizations such as IBM, GE & Boeing it is rather 
small. Success has come from 30,000 people working long and hard day 
in & day out ? not from Bill Gates alone. This case can do much to 
crush ?the American dream? and cut back the US's lead in the IT 
industry. Look at Japan and Europe and how they help to drive their 
national champions ? how do we ready ourselves to compete with them 
? we cut our best players down at the knees ? gee it will be great 
when the software industry goes the way of the US auto & steel 
business.
    Sun & Oracle are both large players but have invested less in 
R&D and are seeing a decline in business ? their outspokenness and 
fighting words of expectant dominance contrast drastically with what 
was discussed in court. AOL TimeWarner is a formidable competitor 
today, while IBM is a giant next to Microsoft. Dig into any of these 
organizations for long enough and one can find something to gripe 
about. Microsoft is probably the closet thing to a model company, 
happy employees and share holders who have shared in its success and 
Millions of customers who have benefited from reduced prices ? 
surmising over whether or not prices would have been cheaper with 
more competition disregards where the IT industry has come from and 
the role that Microsoft has plaid in making computing affordable for 
the masses. Let the market sort itself out.
    I fully support a settlement at this stage and do not believe 
this case should ever have gone to trial. It is a breakdown in our 
system.
    Taun Masterson
    Sammamish . WA



MTC-00013457

From: Dan Pahlajani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft is a monopoly
    Microsoft MUST donate the proposed money (1 billion dollars) in 
cash and NOT as Windows OS and hardware. It will only help it become 
stronger and give it an opportunity to capture education market 
which will defeat the main purpose of this case against them.
    Microsoft had brought some executives as witness to support that 
it is not a monopoly but those witnesses stand to gain by supporting 
Microsoft. For example, CEO Doug Burgum of Great Plains Software has 
always tried hard to be acquired by Microsoft. I know this for fact 
becasue I have been Great Plains consultant for almost 10 years. Now 
that Microsoft acquire it for a cool 1.1 Billion dollars only makes 
the case stronger. Doug Burgum's statements support should be 
questioned. He is the direct beneficiary by supporting Microsoft. He 
doesn't care for the technology industry. Similarly Michael Dell 
stands to gain from a better partnership with Microsoft and 
therefore supported them. Again not caring that such monopoly is not 
good to American consumers.
    If Microsoft is set free, than DOJ should allow De Beers to 
operate in America--justice should be equal for all.
    I can go on and on. . . 
    Best Regards,
    Dan Pahlajani



MTC-00013458

From: Rockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
17695 County Road 1108
Flint, Texas 75762
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I support the settlement that was 
reached in November, and I support Microsoft in this dispute. 
Microsoft has accomplished a tremendous amount in the last ten 
years, and these accomplishments have had a positive impact on our 
daily lives.
    This settlement will end three years of costly litigation. 
Microsoft has agreed to fully carry out all provisions in this 
agreement,

[[Page 25781]]

even provisions that go well beyond the original issues of the 
lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to share information with its 
competitors that will allow them to place their own software on the 
Windows operating system. Microsoft has also agreed to be monitored 
by a technical oversight committee created by the government to 
monitor Microsoft compliance. This settlement will serve in the best 
public interest. Please support this settlement so this company can 
move forward with innovative design. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Helen Rockwell



MTC-00013459

From: andrew hedges
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work in the computer industry and have followed the anti-
competitive practices of Microsoft for some time. It is my layman's 
opinion that Microsoft's proposal to donate computers and software 
to schools will not have the effect of deterring such practices in 
the future and will actually give them inroads into one of the few 
markets they do not currently dominate.
    In a nation that prides itself on free-enterprise, it only seems 
reasonable to assign a remedy that will give the guilty party pause 
in the future and allow the market to freely determine which 
products it uses. A $1B settlement of cash to US schools will do far 
more to promote learning and keep Microsoft from continuing to bully 
competitors than in-kind donations ever would.
    Thanks for keeping America's interests in mind when making this 
decision.
    Andrew Hedges
    Washington, DC



MTC-00013460

From: Jim Hartneady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
    Microsoft has used its operating system monopoly to destroy its 
competition in the application field. It has done this through 
sweetheart deals with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) and 
utilization of predatory pricing. The sweetheart deals required the 
OEM to purchase a copy of the MicroSoft OS even if the computer was 
going to be used for Linux. That is power. It is also abuse of 
power. If your recommended solution does not prevent and punish this 
type behavior then your efforts are a waste of your time.
    The predatory pricing meant that with the profits from their 
monopoly in the OS they could sell their applications at a lower 
price than a competitor. Such a low price that the competitor could 
not make a profit. Without a profit they went out of business. How 
many of you think that PowerPoint or Word are the ``best'' 
applications you have ever used. How many competing applications do 
they have in the business world? Monopoly is wonderful when it is 
benevolent. MicroSoft, however, is not and never will be a 
benevolent monopolist.
    If you correct their behavior to the point where others can 
compete you have done your jobs and done them well.
    Good luck,
    Jim Hartneady
    3200 Wayne Road,
    Falls Church VA 22042



MTC-00013461

From: Yonatan Yoshpe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    This is in response to public comments on the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement:
    Microsoft's monopoly power is evident directly on the Internet 
where it now controls the browser field, claims the highest use on 
the internet via its portal, and is claiming control over travel, 
personal banking, and many other fields.
    With Windows XP this power got translated to an almost complete 
destruction of the publishing businesses on the net (like 
landings.com) by introducing a new ``feature'' into Internet 
Explorer (as default part of the OS) which would highlight words 
appearing in the browser window and hyper-link these to Microsoft 
controlled sites. In other words, Micorosoft would have hijacked the 
work of the independent publisher to its own benefit, and due to its 
monopoly power in the field, the publisher would not have any 
recourse. This was stopped at the last moment due to public outcry. 
But Microsoft does not often listen to the public, nor should this 
be an outcry, it should be up to a healthy market place, where 
multiple players control the field, so that no single company can 
dictate the state of the market or its ``features''. This single new 
``feature'', which would have led to a real destruction for 
thousands of working, producing, and income providing sites on the 
net, is only an example. In every single field of influence in the 
software and many different related net or phone hardware elements, 
Microsoft monopoly is evident and creates huge havoc to the 
industry. It limits the choices we make in product introductions 
(knowing that Microsoft will grab a successful product, copy it, and 
sell it under its force--prevents many efforts in-house), and other 
choices are simply discarded because Microsoft already enjoys 
monopoly in a particular product field. There is endless untold 
limitations on creativity, and untold losses incurred due to the 
monopolistic activities of this giant.
    There are thousands of small publishers making a living from 
independent efforts such as Landings.com. These efforts are crucial 
to the related publishers, but often (just as in the case of 
Landings.com) provide an extremely important independent source of 
information, databases, news, opinion, and comment to their 
respective industry segments.
    I am against any settlement that does not break up Microsoft 
into separate OS and application companies. Without such a 
separation the result would be quite catastrophic for large segments 
of the software, hardware, and Internet industries.
    Sincerely,
    Yonatan Yoshpe, President, Landings.com



MTC-00013462

From: Tobe Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:05pm
Subject: The settlement is unfair.
Tobe Harvey
1580 N.E. Merman Dr. Apt. 395
Pullman, WA 99163
[email protected]
    To Whom it may concern-
    I am writing to state my opinions about the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The settlement does not punish Microsoft as it should. 
Instead, it gives Microsoft a boost when entering the education 
market due to software deals. The true manufacturing costs of 
producing the free Microsoft software has not been taken into 
consideration. The retail value of the software varies greatly from 
the actual cost of manufacturing. Hence, I feel that the Department 
of Justice is having the wool pulled over it's eyes by good lawyers.
    I want to see Microsoft split into three great companies. It's 
Office and Internet Explorer software should be separated from it's 
operating systems. This combination is lethal to competition. 
Office, Internet Explorer, and Windows should stand alone against 
competitors. How many people have even heard of alternative word 
processing applications? Not very many, and I am having a hard time 
myself. Microsoft Word, has complete control. This is strangling 
competition. In addition to strangling word processing competitors 
by connecting themselves to the OS, Internet Explorer is destroying 
the Browser competition. By connecting Internet Explorer so tightly 
to Windows, it is hurting competition.
    Please break up Microsoft into three great companies. Office, 
Internet Explorer, and Windows would be three great separate 
business's for consumers to choose if they wish.
    Sincerely,
    Tobe Harvey



MTC-00013463

From: David Lennard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear USDOJ,
    Here's my short opinion of the settlemenT:
    It is basically a light slap on the wrist with a wink. A company 
as large and powerful as Microsoft is too ingrained in our societies 
daily life (professional and personal) for any settlement to hurt 
it.
    What Microsoft needs is to be taken down and dragged through the 
mud like they have done to other companies, but what would be the 
point, since that would stop the normal day to day flow of American 
life. This lawsuit against Microsoft should have happened 10-15 
years ago. It's too late now. If you levy heavy fines on Microsoft, 
Mr. Gates will just take it out on the willing morons who are slaves 
to this mediocre OS. Only God knows why consumer groups didn't stop 
Gates and Co. years ago when they released lousy product after lousy 
product. With all the hacking that is done to the Windows OS and 
security issues with DOS, Windows and Internet Explorer, Microsoft 
is the software equivalent of the

[[Page 25782]]

Ford Pinto. The DOJ has to take a lot of responsibility for these 
failures. How can a group of products so insecure, so dangerous to 
security keep on getting worse? When everyone else is looking the 
other way. It's too late now to punish them properly. They're too 
powerfull and sucessfull. Instead of punishing them, which the 
average consumer will end up taking the heat for, order Microsoft to 
radically change Windows and all their products so that they are 
basically the safest software anywhere in the world. We can all 
agree that security is more important than anything else in the 
world right now and forever. Thats my 2 cents worth of babbling. 
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
    Sincerely, David J. Lennard



MTC-00013464

From: Dale Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:07pm
Subject: Settlement
    As a person who has worked in the IT / DP field for over 20 
years, on all platforms, I feel that I have some knowledge of the 
field and the software in use.
    It appears that the settlement is a win / lose situation, with 
MicroSoft getting everything they want and the consumer getting 
nothing in return. The so called controls that are proposed are 
laughable when examined closely as is the ``gift'' to the schools.
    Sincerely
    Dale M. Cunningham



MTC-00013465

From: Thomas Hewlett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There is no question that microsoft is trying to take advantage 
of the present economic conditions to avoid the justice it deserves 
for it's anticompetitive behavior over the last 20 years. It would 
be a huge mistake to allow microsoft to escape justice because of 
the present economic difficulty. In the long run it, we would all be 
better served by encouraging more competition in both operating 
systems and software. The present economic difficulties will work 
themselves out, with or without microsoft.
    Thomas Hewlett



MTC-00013466

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Re: Engulf and Devour
    As an educator, a longtime business computer user and a 
concerned American, I have followed the Microsoft Antitrust 
proceedings with increasing shock and disbelief. Something must be 
done. Since the beginning of the proceedings some years back, 
Microsoft's practices have not changed and it position within the 
industry is stronger than ever. There behavior is criminal and 
should be treated as such. Every time I think we are close to 
reaching a solution and putting this behind us, the MS monster rears 
it's ugly head again.
    The breakup proposal was far from perfect but would have 
eliminated the most egregious problem by eliminating the conflict of 
interest created by the leveraging the monopoly power in the OS area 
to build monopolies in other areas. Yes, it would have created two 
monopolies in place of one; but would have leveled the playing field 
on the software end allowing for competitors to make inroads.
    Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it is incapable of policing 
itself and their latest proposal was unbelievable in is naked 
promotion of self interest, furthering my conviction and that of 
many Americans that they must be made to face up to past abuses and 
to admit to wrong doing or be desolved as a corporate entity.
    Edgar Adams
    Assoc. Professor
    Roger Williams University
    School of Architecture, Art and Historic Preservation



MTC-00013467

From: Kevin Mackett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:12pm
Subject: Not strong enough
    To whom it may concern:
    In my opinion, the settlement proposed by Microsoft has no 
teeth. It only partially deals with the primary business tactics 
that Microsoft uses to perpetuate their monopoly and does nothing in 
the way of punishing them for past actions. While I am happy with 
most the work the DOJ has done under
    the Bush administration, I am severely disappointed with the way 
the DOJ now seems to be pandering to Microsoft in the settlement 
talks. Microsoft1s monopoly is bad for the country and bad for the 
computer industry. Only real competition will bring the 
``innovation'' Microsoft claims to bring.
    Kevin Mackett
    primary [email protected]
    Office- on campus only- 2.9277
    emergency cell--928.699.7988



MTC-00013468

From: Joe Bernstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:13pm
Subject: letter ot Attorney General;
    My letter was mailed out today , thank you for your help I 
support Microsoft in their decisions in this matter thank you Joe 
Bernstein



MTC-00013469

From: Christopher Soeffing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would propose that Microsoft donate 1 billion dollars (cash) 
towards an education found. The donations could be spread out over 5 
years. Each state would get a share based on population, and each 
state could determine how to spend the money on education.



MTC-00013470

From: stepnw1f
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:14pm
Subject: My opinion
    I feel it is the People's and the government's obligation to 
ensure that companies such as Microsoft do not abuse our system of 
capitalism, which in most cases, infringes on our Democracy as a 
whole. It is time these huge conglomerates, such as Microsoft pay 
for their abuses in our country. Hopefully this will send a message 
to all other companies, which never seem to pay for their abuses, 
such as Enron, Ford, etc. Do your job. Don't let their power and 
wealth scare you.
    Markus Dubrowski



MTC-00013471

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a student in the IT filed who is nearing graduation I feel 
compelled to comment on the proposed final settlement between the 
DOJ and Microsoft corporation. I will be entering a workforce that 
is compelled to often use products that are less technologically 
superior and more costly than alternatives. This is due to 
Microsoft's illegal maintenance of its monopoly in desktop operating 
systems. Having read the proposed settlement, I feel that it is too 
lenient and contains too many loopholes to be effective in restoring 
competition to the desktop computer operating system market and the 
desktop application market. I also feel that the proposed remedy 
does little to rectify what has happened to the companies that were 
crushed by Microsoft's illegal behavior.
    It should be clear that with Microsoft's recent entries into 
almost every consumer electronics device market that Microsoft will 
seek to drive growth in these markets by leveraging the power of its 
illegal monopoly. Already we have copy protected audio CD's that 
will only play on Windows computers and take advantage of the 
WindowsMedia Player format. Over 90% of all DVD players will soon 
recognize WindowsMedia format as well. These are direct consequences 
of the illegal maintenance of their monopoly. What about Apple's 
operating systems as well as the free Linux operating system which 
many more people are running every day? As it stands right now there 
are audio CD's that will not play on my computer if I am running 
Linux and I feel that the proposed settlement would do nothing to 
change this matter. As it is outlined in the settlement Microsoft 
could claim that releasing any API's for WindowsMedia Player would 
violate the security loophole that they have built into the 
settlement and further the reliance on Windows.
    I also find the section dealing with the technical committee to 
be absurd. This allows MS to choose one of the 3 people assigned to 
oversee it. I wish that if I was ever convicted of a crime that I 
could oversee part of the makeup of the parole board. But of course 
that only happens for corporations with 30 billion dollars in cash. 
This board would also only have authority for five years and does 
not seem to have much power to punish MS if they continue with their 
wrongdoing. I am publicly against the proposed settlement and call 
for a stronger remedy that does not allow Microsoft to continue its 
past practices.

[[Page 25783]]

    Paul Virijevich



MTC-00013472

From: Daniel Park
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please understand the strangle hold Microsoft has on the 
computer software industry. Their clout deepens year after year 
through continual strategies of political lobbying, hostile 
takeovers, and bullying maneuvers towards consumers and businesses. 
With their now current proposal of ``donating'' computer handouts to 
underprivelged schools instead of paying the proposed cash 
settlement, this tactic further restricts the very nature of the 
whole initial debacle; that of restricting competition. The RIGHT 
thing to do would be to have Microsoft front the billion dollars and 
let the schools decide which is the better candidate of computer 
systems, rather than receiving corporate handouts of second rate 
PC's and unreliable software.
    thank you for giving me this opportunity to write to the 
Department of Justice.
    ``The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, 
they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is--I don't mean 
that in a small way, I mean that in a big way. . . .so I guess I am 
saddened, not by Microsoft's success--I have no problem with their 
success, they've earned their success for the most part. I have a 
problem with the fact that they just make really third rate 
products.''
    - Steve Jobs (founder and CEO of Apple, Pixar, NeXT)



MTC-00013473

From: Bob Shelgren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am pleased that the Department of Justice and Microsoft have 
reached a mutually acceptable agreement in the Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit. I sincerely hope that the designated Federal judge will 
approve the proposed terms of settlement which I believe are both 
fair and reasonable for all parties.
    However, I am concerned about the other related antitrust 
lawsuit against Microsoft that represents the interests of the nine 
states which do not concur with the above approach. It is obvious 
that they are very biased and motivated by a desire to support 
several of Microsoft's strongest competitors which are resident in 
their states, (e.g. Sun Microsystems in Massachsetts). They have 
seized the opportunity to attempt to ``level the competitive playing 
field'' versus Microsoft by means of extended antitrust litigation. 
At no time during the past two years has there been any substantive 
evidence presented which shows that the general public customers 
have been unfairly victimized by the alleged monopolistic actions of 
Microsoft. Instead, these nine states are trying to divert the focus 
of the issues in such a manner as to further provide some 
competitive advantages to their constituents. This is wrong.
    In view of the present state of the U.S economy, it is time to 
end this legal action and devote our country's efforts and resources 
to meaningful activites that will promote the general welfare of the 
American public. I respectfully request that you move to terminate 
any further efforts to prosecute Microsoft in this regard.
    Sincerely,
    Robert N. Shelgren
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013474

From: Octavio Guzman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I am currently not happy to see Microsoft not split up, 
for years I have been oppressed by others that use Windows, and the 
Macintosh has always been ahead, and Microsoft is trying to get 
ahead of the law. Not one company even among the wealthiest obtain 
the power to buy themselves out of trouble. By buying out companies, 
they never want to have competition. Apple works hard to keep their 
competition alive, and the alligators at Microsoft are attempting to 
get into Apple's remaining pond. Their suggestion of distributing 
free computers was hypocritical to their monopoly scandal. I must 
also mention that if they want to settle out, it should have been 
with the betrayed Apple customers.
    Thank you,
    Octavio Guzman
    MacAddict since 1984



MTC-00013475

From: Educator Concerned
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear esteemed members of the DOJ ruling on the Microsoft case: I 
would like to express my strong concern in the pending decision in 
the Microsoft Antitrust settlement.
    I am a certified teacher and IT professional as well. I am 
equally comfortable on the Windows and Macintosh platforms. Simply 
put, letting Microsoft donate PCs, software, and money to schools is 
not a punishment, it is a reward. This is already a part of their 
business plan and would strengthen their monoploly on software in 
one of the few realms in which they were not the omnipresent player.
    Apple has long been an advocate for education and has many 
technological initiatives in schools. If Microsoft wishes to try to 
create a monopoly in yet another area of business (education 
software, making Windows the dowminant platform in schools), it is 
essential that they not be aided in this effort by the US 
government. This seems to completely reverse the reasons why 
Microsoft was taken to court in the first place.
    I certainly hope that Microsoft decides, for philanthropic and 
not business reasons, to put time, money, and effort into helping 
education in the US. Microsoft should not be allowed to put software 
and money into schools as part of a plan to increase market share. 
Letting them do so would be completely counterintuitive. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    A concerned cross-platform educator



MTC-00013476

From: Chuck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I think what I have read about the settlement is sickening. The 
USDOJ is letting these people get away with everything. . . almost 
no penalty for hurting innovation. For monopoly. This country was 
supposed to insure a free market. This is a failure of the current 
administration. . . .proving once again that the US is more 
interested in Big Business than the lifeblood of workers that this 
country thrives on. This is a shame.
    Chuck Campbell



MTC-00013477

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    I want to commend you on successfully convicting Microsoft for 
its antitrust violations and documenting its many anticompetitive 
business practices over the years.
    Further, I urge you to consider harsher punishments for 
Microsoft than are contained in the currently proposed settlement. 
The settlement rightly protects the rights of computer retailers to 
include competing browsers, icons, applications, and operating 
systems pre-installed in their products. However, it does not do 
enough to protect end users and competing operating systems. I 
recommend that Microsoft be required to publish openly the file 
formats for its Word, Excel, and PowerPoint applications, which are 
so frequently included as email attachments that the inability of 
competing products to view them properly helps protect Microsoft's 
Windows and Office monopolies.
    MIT's Unix-based campus network development has given the world 
valuable technologies such as the X window system and Kerberos 
authentication. Yet we at MIT, like the rest of the world, cannot 
read and write publicly traded documents in the ubiquitous .DOC, 
.XLS, and .PPT formats without purchasing both Windows and Office 
from Microsoft, for a cost of $600 per machine, plus the cost of 
upgrading hardware for the high memory requirements of Windows XP. 
Forcing these file formats to be published openly would allow real 
competition in the lucrative office software market, which in turn 
would bolster competition in the desktop operating system market.
    The recent decisions by Microsoft to exclude Apple's Quicktime 
movie player and Sun's Java runtime environment in its new XP 
operating system show that the company still values eliminating 
competitive threats far above consumer choice and convenience.

[[Page 25784]]

The settlement you choose must not therefore rely on the goodwill of 
Microsoft or the belief that they will follow the spirit of the 
remedy rather than merely the letter. Any loopholes you leave them 
will surely be exploited.
    You are currently in the valuable and hard-won position of 
having found this monopolist guilty of literally hundreds of 
anticompetitive acts. We as a nation and marketplace have a rare 
chance now to put an end to it. I urge you to make the proposed 
settlement harsher toward Microsoft, not just preventing future 
practices but also penalizing them for their past acts that have 
left lasting damage to the industry. Most importantly, I urge you to 
require open publication of the proprietary file formats Microsoft 
still uses to maintain their operating system and office software 
monopolies.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    John Obenauer
    John Obenauer, Ph.D.
    Yaffe Lab/Center for Cancer Research
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Room E18-576
    Cambridge, MA 02139
    Phone (617) 452-2520



MTC-00013478

From: Casey Arman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement for the Microsoft Antitrust case 
is a mockery of the American Judicial system. In essence, their 
penalty would be to donate antiquated Hardware (computers), 
Microsoft brand Software and a measly sum of money to the only 
remaining sector of American life that is currently outside the 
scope of their monopoly, the education market. This settlement 
would, in the long run, serve to benefit Microsofts interest by 
opening the door for them into an as yet untapped market. A market 
that has been served faithfully and reliably for years by their only 
true competitor, Apple Computer. Furthermore, this settlement may 
damage, and even drive out of business their rivals. Practically 
granting Microsoft a government approved, total monopoly of the 
Software market.
    Microsoft's case is consumer based. Yet their proposed 
settlement revolves around the education market. They are attempting 
to manipulate the Courts in order to serve their goals. It is the 
most disgusting display of predatory business practice I have seen 
from Microsoft to date. Microsoft started out by mistreating and 
misleading consumers. But now they have grown up, and are 
disrespecting our Courts.
    I believe the original penalty, a split up of Microsoft, was a 
fair and beneficial to our society. Microsoft makes to much of a 
profit to be affected by any financial penalties. I urge you, in the 
name of fair business practice, and for the good of our consumers, 
reinstate the Split and send a message that we will not tolerate 
abusive corporations in the United States of America.
    Thank You,
    Casey Arman



MTC-00013479

From: Jon Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have seen no problem with the way Microsoft conduct their 
business. However, I would like more e-mail security and less 
snooping about home computers. Snooping across the Internet by down 
loading someone's hard drive is a big problem. We know that snooping 
is carried on by Government and by Corporate America. They should 
stop it and only in extreme conditions would Government be allowed 
to snoop.
    Companies like Enron should have never been allowed to get to 
the point of bankruptcy before their employees were notified one 
year in advance. And Enron top dogs should pay dearly for running 
lives. Al-Qaida has nothing on Enron top dogs!
    Leave Bill Gates alone and spend prosecuting money & time on 
Enron. . . 
    Regards,
    Jon Grizzle



MTC-00013480

From: Bruce Sesnovich--Information Products
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I write to you during this public comment period to express my 
profound disappointment with the Department of Justice's proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case.
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement fails to ensure 
competition, fails to impose any significant penalty on Microsoft 
for past anticompetitive practices, and fails to dissuade such 
behavior in the future. Finally, it is my opinion that such remedies 
as are included in the settlement lack effective enforcement 
provisions.
    Critical to any meaningful remedy would be a requirment for 
Microsoft to standardize and publish its proprietary Windows 
applications programming interfaces (APIs), as well as the file 
formats of its popular Office applications. Publication of and 
adherence to APIs is commonplace across the software industry. 
Having public APIs and open standards allow interoperation of many 
products from disparate sources. This encourages innovation and 
broad compatability among products, and ultimately benefits the 
consumer.
    As long as Microsoft is allowed to keep details of its APIs and 
file formats selectively hidden, it can ensure that any particular 
non-Microsoft product will not work consistently and reliably with 
its operating systems or Office applications. This further leverages 
its monopoly powers to the detriment of innovation, competition, and 
consumer interest.
    I also find it disturbing that the proposed settlement includes 
no redress for or restriction on monies that Microsoft earned as a 
direct result of its anticompetitive practices. There is no 
provision to surrender any of these funds, nor even to prevent the 
company from using them in the future to buy up and squelch its 
competitors' products or the competitors themselves.
    Finally, the enforcement provisions of the proposed settlement 
are far too weak to have substantive impact on a company with 
Microsoft's resources. Given the company's history of repeatedly 
flouting attempts to regulate its monopolistic behavior, it is my 
opinion that the inspection mechanisms to ensure compliance with DOJ 
settlement provisions need to be much more rigorous, and the 
penalties for violating them draconian. His Honor Judge Penfield-
Jackson's suggested remedy of breaking up the software company would 
probably give Microsoft's top executives some pause. Anything less 
seems unlikely to have a notable effect.
    Sincerely,
    - B. A. Sesnovich
    Concerned citizen and computer professional
    [email protected]> Work
    [email protected]> Home
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013481

From: jsedwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    I use Sun's Java platform and Microsoft Products.
    I feel that Sun has made a lot of noise over this issue. The 
same is true, in my opinion, for others that took part in the 
litigation against Microsoft. Certainly the parties disagree and 
some changes are needed, however, the way the entire proceedings 
have been conducted from start to now causes me concern and 
problems.
    I do believe that Sun and others have pushed so hard because of 
Microsoft's reputation. It's too bad that some of us, me included, 
happen to be much smaller in power than others.
    James H. Edwards



MTC-00013482

From: Kris Spiesz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Findings of Law
    The findings of Fact and Law where untouched by the appeal. As 
such, why does the settlement in the initial whereas section state 
that ``this Final Judgement does not constitute any admission by any 
party regarding any issue of fact or law.''? This feels like giving 
up much of what has been gained.
    Open Source Several sections (III.I.1, III.I.3) of the 
Settlement state that APIs will be availabe to other companies that 
can show a business case for needing it. Open Source Software, by 
its nature, is not a business and thus cannot show a business case 
for anything. Note that Microsoft has declared to the press that 
currently the most important competitor to Microsoft is Linux, an 
Open Source product. SAMBA, an Open Source interoperability product, 
would also have problems under this settlement.
    Security Loophole Section III.J.1 of the settlement entitles 
Microsoft to not make available its APIs if a security concern can 
be raised. As such, given Microsoft's past

[[Page 25785]]

historical behavior, Microsoft is likely to put just enough security 
between items to ensure that any APIsw Microsoft shares are useless 
without the seucrity APIs not available to Mcrosoft's competitors.
    Enforcement. There is no clause for enforcement in the 
settlement. If Microsoft violates the settlement a new court case 
will need to be started to do anything about enforcement. 
Historically this takes three to seven years, thus is likely to run 
beyond expected termination.
    Termination Is five years long enough for this settlement to 
run. Given the past history of litigation between Microsoft and the 
US Government, Digital Research, etc.; I expect that five years is 
not nearly long enough. Twenty would be better. 
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013483

From: paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust
    Microsoft has made the government lawyers look stupid. Or maybe 
they've just been bought off. It's clear to all us software users 
that the company concentrated on establishing a monopoly instead of 
product quality. Their software doesn't work well and doesn't have 
the feature I want but I have no choice because the bought up or ran 
off any business that looked like competitiion.
    I'd like the government to do its job, protect consumers from 
predatory businesses. Make Microsoft open up its software so 
competition can happen. Breaking up the company would be best.
    The government lawyers look like idiots or crooks letting them 
stall and beat down the first decision. It's like convicting a 
killer and letting him stay out of jail to kill again. That's what 
Microsoft just did withe XP, kill competition again. I may have to 
upgrade to XP to maintain up-to-date compatibility but I don't need 
any of XP's few new features and I don't like the way the software 
invades my privacy and narrows my choices. Get off your ass and do 
your job!!!!!
    Give them back their bribes and political contributions!!!!!
    Disrespectfully,
    Paul Haney



MTC-00013484

From: Dick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:39pm
Subject: Settlement with Microsoft
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. 
Microsoft has been held to be a monopolist but is continuing to 
exploit its monopoly. Not only does it overcharge for its software, 
Microsoft continues to act in ways that only a monopoly can get away 
with. Its newest software products (Office XP, XP At Home) are keyed 
to fail (stop working) if the user changes her hardware 
configuration. So if I replace a failed hard drive or decide that I 
need a new modem then I must call Microsoft to plead for a new key 
code to get my system to keep working. And if there are any 
(inveitable) snafus or Microsoft does not believe me or agree with 
me? Why then I might have lost all access to important financial 
records, be unable to continue electronic commerce and go bankrupt. 
Rational business people would not incur such risk if there were 
viable alternatives but Microsoft has used its monopoly position to 
systematically stamp out alternatives. A competitor could not use 
such extortionate methods. Subaru (Fuji Heavy Industries) might 
disallow warranty claims if I change the configuration of my car but 
they have no legal basis to disable its operation and attempting to 
do so would guarantee their quick exit from business. Microsoft 
would like to be able to remotely intrude into customers computers 
to sabotage working software. That is one of the goals of the UCITA 
state legislation they back.
    This is only one example of Microsoft's arrogance and abuse of 
monoploy power. It is vital to the future of this nation that 
Microsoft be stopped. They must be stopped from crushing innovation 
and alternatives as they are bent upon doing. The proposed 
settlement does not come close to doing that and will see 
continuation of abuses.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Regards-Dick Wilmot [email protected]



MTC-00013485

From: Amanda Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:41pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Although I was deeply disappointed that the Department of 
Justice chose not to reprimand Microsoft by seeking a restructuring 
of their company, I am pleased that you have recognized and 
acknowledged the company's history of deceptive and unfair business 
practices. I am a small business owner, a Republican, and consider 
myself to be very
    pro-business. However, it had been clear to me and my business 
partners that Microsoft has made a practice of keeping its 
competition--as well as its potential competition--from even 
entering the personal computer and software marketplace.
    Thank you for recognizing Microsoft as a monopoly and for taking 
action in an attempt to ensure fairness in their business affairs 
now and in the future.
    Very truly yours,
    Amanda L. Smith
    ospreydesign
    941-746-0144
    [email protected]
    http://www.ospreydesign.com
    Providing freelance design to book publishers
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013486

From: Joel Ingulsrud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    Microsoft's illegally acquired dominance in computer operating 
systems is enabling them to dominate network protocols and services.
    From both a personal and professional standpoint I would 
strongly urge the DOJ to pursue the strongest possible punishment so 
that Microsoft is rendered incapable of controlling the future of 
the Internet.
    For example, Microsoft products should be disqualified from any 
tax-funded technology use within the US Federal government, 
including all Federal employee computing and federally funded 
educational technology programs.
    Alternative operating system and application software developers 
would then have a significant opportunity to recover from 
Microsoft's anti-competitive crimes.
    The wealth Microsoft has generated is a pittance compared to the 
costs associated with de facto use of their mediocre technology and 
the untold lost opportunities for productivity improvement and 
technological advancement that an even playing field would have 
allowed.
    The more the DOJ does to eliminate Microsoft's ability to 
propagate proprietary technology, the better the world of technology 
will be for the citizens of this country.
    Sincerely,
    Joel Ingulsrud
    [email protected]
    +1 916 705 4678



MTC-00013487

From: Bace, Chuck (Oracle)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government sold out big time. I voted for Bush, but support 
Microsoft's breakup!



MTC-00013488

From: Cameron Huff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to express my concern for the recent new of 
Microsoft buying patents from SGI. I believe this is an attempt by 
Microsoft to destroy a competing standard (OpenGL) by purchasing the 
rights to the patents and then making it impossible for anyone to 
use them. I believe that the only reason Microsoft is doing this and 
can do it is that the company feels threatened by a competing 
standard and rather than improving Microsoft's own products 
(DirectX), instead they will buy the competitor and destroy it.
    If this is not a clear case of a monopoly doing whatever it 
feels like, then nothing is.
    Cameron Huff



MTC-00013489

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Mr. Attorney General Ashcroft
    Dear Sir:
    Please advise the Federal Judge who is handling the Microsoft 
case to let it go! ``Enough is enough''!! Microsoft has suffered 
enough at the hands of greedy States Attorneys Generals.
    A GOP Loyalist



MTC-00013490

From: Jim Nearing
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25786]]

    I continue to be amazed at the continuing behavior of Microsoft 
and the continuing information brought to light.
    Yesterday I read on slashdot ( http://www.slashdot.org ) that 
Microsoft has purchased the rights to the OpenGL graphics 
programming interface from Silicon Graphics.
    This API is in direct competition and is superior to Microsoft's 
DirectX API. These programming interfaces are used for creating 
computer games. The only intent Microsoft has in purchasing the 
OpenGL patents is to kill OpenGL, leaving DirectX the only tool 
available to game developers. Since OpenGL is used for creating 
games for the Linux platform, this also serves to eliminate the 
availabilty of games for Linux, forcing computer game players to use 
Windows.
    I don't understand why Microsoft is allowed to purchase 
competing technologies, given their continuing monopolistic 
behavior.
    Jim Nearing
    Vectura Technology Integrators



MTC-00013491

From: Jesse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice,
    I'm a self-employed computer consultant working in eastern 
Washington. As a small business owner/operator, I don't have much 
time to spend on superfluous activities like composing long 
editorial diatribes. After all, I have to be the janitor, 
accountant, tax lawyer, bread winner, well. . . you get the picture.
    In any case, I felt compelled to add my voice to this issue of 
the ``Microsoft Settlement.'' I've been in the the computer and 
information technology industry for 18 years. In those 18 years, I 
have personally seen how the Microsoft monopoly has developed, from 
its embryonic beginnings in the early '80s, to its stranglehold in 
present time.
    I am a true believer of capitalism, and hold dearly to the idea 
that you get what you work for. But when a company controls all but 
5 percent of the world's computer systems, something needs to be 
done. This is not speculation or exaggeration, it is a fact. When a 
customer, or supplier, can order any computer system they wish from 
a top-tier PC manufacturer, as long as it comes with a Microsoft 
Operating System, it's gone too far. Allowing Microsoft to continue 
on its way will only hasten the development of the Microsoft 
refrigerator, Microsoft Motor Company, Microsoft Burger King, and 
Microsoft Grocery Store line.
    The computer and information technology industry needs true 
competition in the operating system and productivity software 
markets. Please add my voice to those that hope for a settlement 
that would at minimum, break Microsoft into two parts, operating 
systems, and productivity applications. Anything less than a 
breakup, will do nothing to stop the monopoly. Even then, the two 
Microsofts would own their respective markets, but at least it would 
hopefully put an end to the unholy alliance between the two, and 
allow some semblance of competition.
    Best Regards,
    Jesse Mireles
    Yakima, WA



MTC-00013492

From: Krystle Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
Dear Judge,
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgment concerning Microsoft 
would be an unfair act. Microsoft should not be able to have a 
monopoly because everyone deserves a fair chance in the free market. 
Microsoft is a great company but competition should be allowed, 
especially becaues new people and their ideas will exist in the near 
future.
    Krystle Hunt
    (213) 764-9730
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00013493

From: Emory Dively
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:54pm
Subject: In reference to the Anti-Trust case.
    While a capitalistic society is necessary and desirable, there 
is a line that companies should not cross on their journey to 
success. I approve of the charges set forth against Microsoft 
claiming that they are a monopoly. However, I do not think that a 
punishment that really is not a punishment would help. I was deeply 
pleased that their punishment would not be that they must donate 
Windows based machines to poorer school, because in reality that 
would actually help them. Of course all this already happened. What 
I would like to see happen with this case is, Microsoft would have 
to start bundling Netscape or Mozzila web browsers, and remove their 
seamless interaction with Internet Explorer, but rather allow the 
user to chose which Browser Windows should interact with 
``seamlessly.''
    Also, I believe Microsoft should have to pay educational 
facilities with the intent of technology. However, in the interest 
of the free market, they should be able to chose their own OS, 
Parts, and Applications they would like to use. In reality, many 
schools prefer Apple/Motorola based systems because of their network 
ease.
    All in all, I am sure this will work out, and the best decision 
will be made.
    Thanks for your time,
    Emory D. Dively



MTC-00013494

From: zenda eby
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
zenda eby
4405 CR 6260
Lubbock, TX 79415-9703
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    zenda eby



MTC-00013495

From: Dan Shipos
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dan Shipos
172 Ludlowville Rd.
Lansing, NY 14882
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Shipos



MTC-00013496

From: Bruce Martin

[[Page 25787]]

To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Martin
729 Michelle Pl
Coppell, tx 75019
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce MArtin



MTC-00013497

From: Ted Rust
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wanted to take a moment to let you know how strongly I feel 
about this case. I am appalled at the things Microsoft has done and 
the things that they always get away with. As a computer software 
professional, I think the detriment they have caused to our industry 
is immeasurable. They claim to innovate, but they simply squash 
whomever they can. They claim to leverage disparate technologies, 
but they simply buy out the competition and throw it away in 
preference of their own product. I don't think that Netscape is the 
only company or group of people to have suffered at the hands of 
Microsoft. I think Apple may be one of the hardest hit, as a 
company. I really feel that the entire population has suffered, 
though. The lack of viable competition to this juggernaut of a 
company has slowed (and stopped, in many cases) the rate of 
innovation usually experienced in our industry.
    I find it difficult to express my disappointment and anger at 
the outcome of every failed battle against Microsoft. Please, just 
take into account that I represent a large group of unsatisfied 
people in the public that wish something would be done to protect us 
from the iron-fisted rule of Microsoft. Just because they have a 
potentially limitless barrel of cash, does not mean that they should 
be able to do whatever they want.
    Microsoft deserves to be punished. I think they should have to 
pay the billion dollars they offered, but 100% of it should go 
towards competitive software and hardware. Buy Apple Macintosh 
computers and software from Corel and smaller independent software 
vendors. Let Microsoft feel the cutting edge of their own money.
    Thank you for your time and I respect the difficulty of your 
decision.
    Please take your time and consider the ethics lesson our future 
leaders will receive from the outcome of this case.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Rust
    750-66 Mobil Av
    Camarillo, CA 93010
    805.484.9585



MTC-00013498

From: Chong, Joe
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The opinion stated here is mine and does not reflect the opinion 
of my employer.
    As a Windows user, a Windows developer, and a Macintosh user, I 
think that a settlement for Microsoft abuses of its monopoly should 
include a mandatory development of all Microsoft non-operating 
system software (such as fully featured Microsoft Office) on other 
operating system platforms than Windows, especially for Mac OS X and 
possibly Linux. The Visual Studio Suite should also be completely 
portable to Mac OS X. This will ensure that Microsoft will not be 
able to use its Windows OS monopoly to crush competition from Apple. 
The mandatory period should be long enough (5-10 years) to make sure 
that these software development efforts will be mature.
    Sincerely,
    Songsdhit Chongsiriwatana



MTC-00013499

From: TED Ruhf
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
TED Ruhf
405rockhill circle
Bethlehem, pa 18017
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Ruhf



MTC-00013500

From: Rich Droske
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rich Droske
P.O. Box 355
New Alexandria, pa 15670-0355
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rich Droske



MTC-00013501

From: darcy oresky
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
darcy oresky
3696 bacon
berkley, mi 48072-1175
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25788]]

U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Darcy Oresky



MTC-00013502

From: Lawrence Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Brown
RR1 Box 520
Scotrun, PA 18355-9620
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence J. Brown



MTC-00013503

From: david imperi
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
david imperi
609 roby rd
huntington, wv 25705
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Imperi



MTC-00013504

From: Jerry Cox
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Cox
8562 E. Co. Rd. 550 S.
Fillmore, IN 46128
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 D. Cox



MTC-00013505

From: Nancy Hundley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Hundley
P O Box 643
Harrison, AR 72602
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Hundley



MTC-00013506

From: Reubelita Locatelli
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Reubelita Locatelli
19 Maple
Calumet, MI 49913
January 17, 2002

[[Page 25789]]

Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Reubelita E. Locatelli



MTC-00013507

From: Brian Wegener
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Wegener
2615 Columbia Dr.
Endwell, NY 13760-2301
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Wegener



MTC-00013508

From: Janos Szeman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Janos Szeman
2105 Washington Valley Rd.
Martinsville, NJ 08836
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Janos Szeman



MTC-00013509

From: Brian Witwicki
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Witwicki
3179 Teal Bay Court
Aurora, IL 60504
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Witwicki



MTC-00013510

From: Bob Windle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob Windle
4000 Ace Lane #107
Lewisville, TX 75067
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Windle



MTC-00013511

From: Glenn Wolfe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn Wolfe
4315 Mockingbird Lane

[[Page 25790]]

Toledo, OH 43623-3218
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Glenn A. Wolfe



MTC-00013512

From: Zena Holderbaum
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Zena Holderbaum
52801 Baker Rd.
Chesterfield, MI 48047-3109
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Zena M. Holderbaum



MTC-00013513

From: Gary Blokland
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Blokland
8942 Stony Brook Circle
Riverside, CA 92508
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Blokland



MTC-00013514

From: Ralph Wilt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Wilt
3950 Salvation Rd
Florissant, mo 63034-3332
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph A. Wilt, Jr



MTC-00013515

From: Jerry Milligan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Milligan
22501 Shorewood
St. Clair Shores, MI 48081
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 M. Milligan



MTC-00013516

From: W. David Gibson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. David Gibson
2880 Farr Road

[[Page 25791]]

Fruitport, MI 49415-9610
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. David Gibson



MTC-00013517

From: Karen Antunes
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karen Antunes
908 Crenshaw Lake Road
Lutz, FL 33548-6109
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Antunes



MTC-00013518

From: Margaret Anders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Anders
512 Dogwood St.`
Redfield, AR 72132
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Anders (73)



MTC-00013519

From: Charles Schneider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Schneider
PO Box 191
Ogunquit, ME 03907-0191
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 W. Schneider



MTC-00013520

From: Donna Bolstad
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Bolstad
4518 Ladyslipper Ave N
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443-1553
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Bolstad



MTC-00013521

From: Norma Summers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norma Summers

[[Page 25792]]

1304 E. 10th St. Apt. 16B
Atlantic, IA 50022-1942
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Norma Summers



MTC-00013522

From: Frank Williams
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Williams
710 Peachtree St Suite 920
Atlanta, GA 30308
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Williams



MTC-00013523

From: Drucilla Biddle
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Drucilla Biddle
832 Union Chapel Rd.
Ft. Wayne, In 46845-9635
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Drucilla Biddle



MTC-00013524

From: John Foster
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Foster
1908 Seminole Road
Atlantic Beach, FL 32233-5918
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 D. Foster, M.D.



MTC-00013525

From: Farida Greene
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Farida Greene
108 NW Av H Pl, PO Box 302
Belle Glade, FL 33430-0302
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Farida H Greene



MTC-00013526

From: Joanne Murray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    RE:Microsoft Settlement. We the consumers of the nation want to 
have all of the options offered in the various Microsoft products 
and services. the settlement is fair. Get on with it. Joanne & Jay 
Murray

[[Page 25793]]



MTC-00013527

From: Douglas Aalseth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is a total sell out. I cannot say too 
strongly how disgusted I was when I read the details. I have been 
working in the computer industry for over a decade on many platforms 
and can without any hesitation say that Microsoft has measurably 
hurt its competitors, the industry, and this nations computer 
infrastructure. They deserve to be as severely punished for their 
crimes as the rest of the industry and this country has been 
punished by their monopoly.
    The current settlement proposal does nothing to punish 
Microsoft, to redress its past actions, or even to do anything to 
prevent future rapacious behavior. After all Microsoft has a well 
documented history of signing legal agreements and then ignoring 
them. It is a total sell out being proposed for purely political 
reasons by the Bush administration. The punishment proposed by the 
trial judge was set aside by higher courts on technical grounds, not 
due to any intrinsic flaw in the remedy. It is still the best 
answer. Only by dividing Microsoft into many parts, perhaps many 
more than that proposed by the trial judge can Microsoft be forced 
to give up its monopoly. To do anything less would be to betray the 
trust of the American people and to undermine their belief in our 
judicial system. We did it a hundred years ago with Standard Oil. It 
is now time to do it again.
    I strongly urge you to reject this settlement and impose a 
fitting punishment, one even harsher than that proposed by the trial 
judge.
    Douglas Aalseth
    Computer Industry Professional
    1565 Sherwood Road
    Shoreview, MN 55126



MTC-00013528

From: Sheryle Crowell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sheryle Crowell
80336 Hornsby Lane
Hermiston, Or 97838
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sheryle Crowell--Hermiston, Or



MTC-00013529

From: Rio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:30pm
Subject: API Documentation
    Unless Microsoft is required to fully document ALL APIs, it will 
continue to kill the software industry by:
    * changing the operating system so competitors products will not 
work
    * include features and functions in its own products which are 
not available to competitors
    Never before in the history of computers, has an OS1s APIs been 
deemed ?intellectual property1 or ?for security reasons1.
    Thank you.
    Rio Sabadicci
    mailto:[email protected]
    760-804-9900
    ------- http://www.insidersoftware.com >------



MTC-00013530

From: m. thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:12pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To the Dept. of Justice,
    Enough is enough of hounding Microsoft. From reading The 
N.Y.Times, The Wall Street Journal and other publications, it is 
perfectly clear that the litigation against Microsoft has been (and 
is) politically motivated out of competitive pique. In its short 
life, Microsoft has given us consumers, the world over, an 
innovative & high quality product (second to none) which has 
enriched our lives. Microsoft has been accused of predatory 
marketing practices--not so. In my opinion, Microsoft's marketing 
strategies are in the best tradition of American Capitalism and 
economic competition. Those who can't compete should work harder or 
just drop out of the fray. In the best interest of the U.S. economy 
and the consumer, all litigation against Microsoft should be 
resolved and terminated as quickly as possible so that Microsoft can 
get back to doing what it does best--research and development of 
software. Microsoft has made America proud.
    Sincerely yours,
    Marcia Pe?a Thompson
    300 Fox Chapel Road Apt. 206
    Pittsburgh, Pa, 15238



MTC-00013531

From: Matias Moyano
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:12pm
Subject: about ``Bar public from witness questioning''
    hello, i will like you to read this please, dont accept what 
microsoft is asking for. . .  everyone of us, like every one of the 
users of microsoft products wants to follow the proceedings against 
microsoft in the ``new case'' against microsoft. in less words, i 
want to read in every news paper in every country around the world 
what can the witnesses say in the antitrust case against microsoft! 
i want to see, hear or read what is being said on the pre-hearings!, 
dont leave us out!
    ICQ#:29551041
    Current ICQ status:
    SMS: (Send an SMS message to my ICQ): +278314229551041
    More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/29551041



MTC-00013532

From: Dan Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:13pm
Subject: Microsoft and the OpenGL patents
    Any question whether Microsoft now finally plans to play well 
with others? They just purchased from SGI the patents to OpenGL. 
Make that ClosedGL.
    Can you explain why Microsoft would want to own, as opposed to 
license, those patents? If you can't, then you haven't been paying 
attention for the last 10 years.
    Perhaps it's to leverage their competitors out of the graphics 
industry by obstructing OpenGL progress and thereby advancing the 
cause of their own closed-solution, incompatible Direct3D? OpenGL is 
already struggling to stay current in the face of D3D's standards-
excluding march across the application developer landscape. If 
Microsoft is successful in bringing on the collapse of OpenGL, I'd 
find it very difficult to imagine that Apple or Linux could survive 
(unless they licensed D3D). The lack of a D3D engine for the 
PlayStation or Nintendo's Game Cube means that ultimately these 
companies would follow Apple's & Linux's demise or they would be 
forced to license D3D from Microsoft. All of those alternatives are 
very bleak pictures. As a Microsoft developer for 15+ years, I'm 
quite sure that's precisely what Bill has in mind.
    Please, someone, make this nightmare end!
    Dan Herman
    DigitalFish Films
    http://www.digitalfish.com



MTC-00013533

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I don't feel that Microsoft was treated fairly at all in this 
matter. The government seems to be persecuting this company for 
being too good at what they do and making a product that many people 
like. The government should support American companies like 
Microsoft that do well and make a hearty contribution to our 
economy.
    This settlement is not only good for getting Microsoft back in 
business but it will have a direct impact on the consumer as well. 
By

[[Page 25794]]

increasing access to Microsoft's code, more programs with greater 
Windows compatibility can be designed and they can work better 
together. Both of these factors are a big draw to many people and I 
know that people especially those who daily depend on Microsoft 
products, will be pleased with it.
    Please let's all get on to more important matters and leave this 
mess behind. The settlement will help us do that and will bring an 
end to this case.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Lakoff
    639 Bridgeway Lane
    Naples, Florida 34108



MTC-00013535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my opinion that Microsoft should not have been taken to 
court in the first place. Anti Monopoly legislation should be 
intended for cases where price gouging occurs. I don't believe that 
any harm was done to the public through their actions.
    Gary Doering
    Concerned citizen



MTC-00013536

From: John J. D'Alessandro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:24pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am trained as a physicist, but have quite a bit of technical 
expertise in computer use and work both as a High School physics 
teacher and as a consultant on both Windows platforms and Macintosh 
platforms. Microsoft products are on nearly 100% of hard drives, 
particularly if one includes applications along with the Operating 
System (OS) involved in this case. Microsoft is clearly a monopoly. 
Microsoft's dominance has grown in the last 3 years, despite the 
fact that Apple Computer has been one of the few profitable computer 
manufacturers, and that Apple has a proprietary (non-Microsoft) OS. 
Also, there has been the growth of a free version of Unix (a 
competing OS), called Linux. While Linux has gotten quite a bit of 
press, it has not been able to grow due to lack of commercial 
software packages (like Microsoft Office). Microsoft Windows (in 
various versions) has crept from about 90% to about 96% of the 
market in the last 10 years according the IDC corporation which logs 
these things. This means they have grown stronger in dominance.
    Microsoft has cash reserves in the tens of billions of dollars. 
It has monthly PROFITS in the tens to hundreds of millions of 
dollars. Microsoft is an extremely cash-rich, low production cost 
company. It can afford a lot of punishment before the punishment 
really stings. There recent proposals have been insulting in that 
they have want to ``give'' a small amount of cost worth of goods, 
rating at suggested retail value, and services to schools. This 
would allow them to defacto infuse themselves into one of only a few 
market segments in which Microsoft does not dominate, while allowing 
a great Public Relations campaign, and all at very little real cost 
to the company. That was, in my opinion, showing contempt to the 
courts.
    Microsoft should be required to pay billions of dollars in 
fines. They should not be allowed to continue practices like 
adopting industry standards, and then changing them. A recent 
example, try to use Apple Computer's Quicktime plugin with the 
Internet Explorer XP on Windows XP. You can't, because microsoft 
insists their architecture is ``better.'' They have, in fact, 
disabled the internet software plug-in architecture that has been 
around for over a decade and was introduced in Mosaic and then 
Netscape Navigator, I believe. It is an industry standard. All other 
versions of Internet Exporer use it. Now Microsoft wants to drop it. 
They are mean and nasty in business dealings, and they need to be 
regarded as such. They are not ``evil,'' but will use anything to 
their advantage. Please do not let their final ``punishment'' end up 
being a reward.



MTC-00013537

From: Keith Dick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    They should not be allowed to do this. It would give them an 
*unfair advantage* in the educational market for which, Apple 
Computer has worked very hard to acquire and Microsoft did not. 
Microsoft should not *Get Their Cake and be able to Eat It Too !*.
    Keith Dick
    Executive Presentations, Inc.
    3345 Wilshire Blvd. #1234
    Los Angeles, CA 90010
    (213) 480-1644 (ph.)
    (213) 480-1838 (fax)
    www.executivepresentations.com



MTC-00013538

From: Virginia Hulbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:32pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle the microsoft case as soon as possible. It has 
dragged on long enough. The consumers have waited and suffered more 
than necessary.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Hulbert and William Hulbert



MTC-00013539

From: Steven Grenell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement would allow them to expand 
their business while enjoying a tax break for donating software to 
schools, definitely NOT the remedy envisioned for the shifty 
practices for which they were originally prosecuted. A remedy should 
be fashioned by a judge, not by Microsoft.
    Steven L. Grenell, M.D.
    Neurology Consultant
    Montefiore Pain Service
    Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurology
    Albert Einstein College of Medicine



MTC-00013540

From: Jesse Garson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly feel that the proposed settlement does not go nearly 
far enough in correcting a decade of monopoly abuse by Microsoft. 
Even as we speak Microsoft is leveraging its illegal monopoly on 
desktop computers to enter the set-top, video game, and DVD player 
markets. Microsoft's long standing disregard for both our legal 
system and their own customers is legendary among information 
technology professionals. Please do NOT proceed with this 
settlement, which appears to be little more than a slap on the wrist 
of Microsoft.
    --Jesse W. Garson



MTC-00013541

From: GORDYmac 2K
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not be able to expand their market share as a 
result of any settlement.
    Rather, the courts should force microsoft to adopt standards in 
HTML (based on the W3C), XML, OpenGL, and other open standards--and 
not allow them to modify these standards in their own software. 
Microsoft cripples their competition by ``adopting'' standards like 
HTML, and then using their monopoly power to force the industry to 
change the standards. They have done this with HTML and XML already.
    Now that they have purchased some of SGI's intellectual 
property, it's only a matter of time before they try to force OpenGL 
out of the 3D graphics arena. Furthermore, they should be forces to 
pay damages to every company mentioned in Judge Jackson's opinion. 
They have seriously hurt these companies, and they should pay 
damages. Furthermore, this would reduce the court's workload, 
because if you awarded damages here, then companies could not do it 
in the future.
    Finally, Microsoft should not be allowed to continue charging 
extremely high prices for their software. Please stop them. Thanks 
for hearing my opinions.



MTC-00013542

From: Kris Brinkerhoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Comments
    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

[[Page 25795]]

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
    Kris Brinkerhoff
    --ITS Help Desk Analyst
    --California State University, Fresno



MTC-00013543

From: Bill Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:50pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I have reviewed the documents relating to this case and I 
strongly urge the proposed settlement be adopted in its entirety. 
While the complainants may have had some justification for their 
actions I think the time and cost of resolving this thing has gone 
on far too long and the cost to taxpayers has been a travesty. 
Moreover, this settlement will provide the protection to the 
consumers the complainants were seeking. I was glad I was asked to 
comment.



MTC-00013544

From: John Vresilovic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please don't let Microsoft off the. It has been established that 
the company is an illegal monopoly that has abused its position in 
the market. It has been documented that Microsoft failed to comply 
with an earlier consent decree designed to end its unfair business 
practices. If Microsoft gets the proverbial slap on the wrist, the 
software industry and consumers will suffer. A settlement that fails 
to sufficiently punish Microsoft for its abuses of monopoly power is 
bad for business and bad for America.
    --A concerned citizen--



MTC-00013545

From: Verna Heimbinder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:53pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
January 17, 2002
Larry Heimbinder
81 Squirrel Trail
Hendersonville, NC 28791
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to express my opinion in regard to the 
Microsoft Settlement issue. I am a supporter of Microsoft and feel 
that this litigation has gone on long enough. This three year case 
has been costly, and I believe it is time to focus on more pressing 
issues. The settlement that was reached in November is a complete 
agreement. Under it, Microsoft has agreed to share more information 
with other companies and to follow pro-competitive procedures, which 
will make it easier for other companies to compete. 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. Microsoft has also 
agreed to make available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms, any protocol implemented in Windows' operating 
system products that are used to interoperate natively with any 
Microsoft server operating system.
    This settlement is thorough. Please support this settlement so 
that this dispute can finally be resolved.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely
    Larry Heimbinder



MTC-00013546

From: Dan Albert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:04pm
Subject: MS Settlement Not Good Enough
    Three cheers for not going along with the DoJ. Their fox-in-the-
henhouse solution is too obviously bad to bother criticizing. Split 
up the company or at least make them pay us for having to use their 
products.
    Dan Albert
    56 Portside Circle
    East Falmouth, 02536
    Dan Albert
    800-552-3633 x1962
    [email protected]



MTC-00013547

From: Greg J Piper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I could go on for a week spewing out reasons why Microsoft needs 
to be stopped at all costs from it's ambition to control all of the 
world's information, but suffice it to say there are no words to 
describe how often and how much Microsoft has hurt and will hurt us 
all. Most of the computer using world cannot see the war of coding 
they are waging in the underpinnings of their operating system. They 
are able to keep this war completely concealed from 99.9% of the 
population due to people's ignorance about the subject. If Ford 
wanted to make a truck engine that got worse gas mileage than it was 
capable of on purpose, just to damage the US economy, slowly, over a 
20 year period, do you honestly think anyone would find out? What if 
they were the sole makers of 99% of the vehicles in existence? Such 
is what Microsoft can and does do to YOU. Even if a small population 
KNOW that ANY other computer platform is better than Microsoft 
Windows, just try convincing a 99.9% majority of that! Impossible. 
Impossible to compete against their monopoly.
    ? Greg J Piper
    ? Piper Computer Services
    ? Email: [email protected]
    ? MacPiCkS: http://macpicks.com
    ? EduLinks: http://edulinks.macpcs.com
    ? SearchLinks: http://searchlinks.macpcs.com
    ? Macintography: http://www.macintography.com
    ? PCS Home: http://www.pipercomputerservices.com



MTC-00013548

From: Eric Godfrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Public Comment:
    I must say I am astonished that anyone would call this a 
``settlement''. It appears to be a billion dollar gift to Microsoft. 
They DID lose their case, right? The ``settlement'' gives them a way 
to dump old equipment, and a guaranteed entry into a key market 
dominated by a competitor (public schools). If I came in as a CEO 
with such a business ``solution'', I'd be praised and get a big 
salary increase. To be given this by the federal government as a 
penalty for ``losing'' a case? WOW!
    As you can see, I think this so-called settlement is absolutely 
absurd, and I convey my opposition in the strongest possible terms.
    Sincerely,
    Eric P. Godfrey
    P. O. Box 75, W14411 Prairie Road
    Ripon, Wisconsin 54971-0075



MTC-00013549

From: Jim Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:02pm
Subject: Microsoft comments
    Though most of the information I may have gathered about the 
Microsoft settlement may be somewhat inaccurate, I do believe that 
Microsoft deserves to be punished.
    For what it's worth, I am an Apple Macintosh user and college 
student. I am writing this in support for Microsoft to show a bit 
more ``software fairness'' for not only Macintosh platforms, but 
many others as well.
    From what I have recently understood, Microsoft is trying to 
show its compassionate side by giving up to $1 billion to needy 
schools in hopes to alleviate itself from these concurrent lawsuits. 
And though this may be a good for schools, Microsoft only intends to 
give away its very own products and refurbished PCs serving its 
operating system, while forgetting about support for any other 
platform. This, in turn, could cause problems for school districts 
who may rely on the sole usage of say, Apple products.
    In my honest opinion, I believe such things as Microsoft is 
doing (or has done) are wrong and perfectly define the word 
``monopoly.'' Such things are the epitome of the word.
    It is my hope that Microsoft be brought to justice and that in 
doing so would realign equal opportunity and give consumers the 
``right to choose'' benefits that should be practiced diligently 
within our technological industry, not oppressed by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Robinson



MTC-00013550

From: Lise Holliker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am baffled at an arrangement where Microsoft actually gains 
ground in the educational computer industry (where a smaller 
competitor has a healthy share of the

[[Page 25796]]

market) as a settlement for misconduct and unfair business 
practices. Any provision of equipment or software donation (in 
educational or other environments) in lieu of actual cash actually 
promotes the further purchase and use of Windows and Windows-
compatible PCs. I cannot imagine that Microsoft would provide 
schools with anything other than their own product--even for schools 
who would, if given a choice, select another product.
    I agree with the position of Apple Computer, Inc. in their 
objection to this proposed settlement and request that the Justice 
Department demand a more equitable solution--one that does not pave 
the way for increased future sales via ``donations'' from Microsoft. 
Do not reward this company with future profits disguised as 
restitution for past wrongs.
    Thank you.
    Lise M. Holliker
    1623 Howard Chapel Court
    Crofton, MD 21114
    [email protected]



MTC-00013551

From: Rick Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi. A quick comment about the Microsoft/DOJ Settlement.
    I'm concerned about the following section of the settlement: A. 
Microsoft shall not retaliate against an OEM by altering Microsoft's 
commercial relations with that OEM, or by withholding newly 
introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration (including but not 
limited to new versions of existing forms of non-monetary 
Consideration) from that OEM, because it is known to Microsoft that 
the OEM is or is contemplating: . . .  (2) shipping a Personal 
Computer that (a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product 
and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more 
than one Operating System; or
    If I read this section correctly (and I readily admit that I am 
no lawyer), Microsoft is prohibited from putting commercial pressure 
(``retaliate'', ``altering commercial relations'', etc.) on 
companies that choose to ship a non-Microsoft operating system and a 
Microsoft operating system on the same personal computer.
    Let's say I sell 5000 computers with Windows, and 1000 with 
Linux. Another company sells 4000 with Windows, and 1000 with 
Windows and Linux. Both companies purchased the same number of 
Windows licenses, but the first company is not protected by the 
prohibition because they didn't install Linux and Windows on the 
same computers. The second company is protected, because all of 
their non-Microsoft offerings include the corresponding Windows 
product on the same computers. And what about computers that can't 
run Windows? Apple, for example, is a consumer of Microsoft's Office 
for Macintosh product (in fact, they sell it with new Macintoshes). 
But you can't run Windows on an Apple Macintosh, you can ONLY run 
the Macintosh operating system. By definition, Apple cannot comply 
with this clause of the prohibition to protect itself from 
commercial retaliation. Can Microsoft therefore retaliate against 
Apple (e.g., by charging more money for copies of Office that Apple 
resells to customers), in an attempt to undermine Apple's business 
and force its customer to move to Windows PCs?
    I will grant that this prohibition does not explicitly permit 
Microsoft to ``retaliate'' against companies that choose to ship 
non-Microsoft operating systems without Windows. But I don't 
understand why Microsoft gets special treatment in this regard. 
Surely the prohibition should be broadened to the general case: that 
Microsoft cannot retaliate against a customer simply because that 
customer chooses to do also purchase products from a competitor. Any 
computers that a company sells without a Microsoft operating system 
are not Microsoft's concern.
    Rick Russell
    4321 Goldfinch St.
    Houston, TX 77035
    (713) 721-5096
    [email protected]



MTC-00013552

From: Kevin O'Hehir
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:12pm
Subject: microsoft anti trust case.
    I recently purchased a computer from Dell and returned it. Here 
is a copy of the letter I mail to Mr. Dell I also find it quite 
interesting that Microsoft has been called a monopoly and is allowed 
to extract monopoly profits. Take a look at the cash and marketable 
securities it holds. Then try to find another monopoly that is as 
rich as they are. Microsoft came out with a new operating system XP 
and doubled the price for the upgrade and for a new system. It is 
confusing to me how PC manufacturers continue to drop prices, but 
the monopoly has raised them.
    Thanks in advance for taking time to read my email. In closing, 
Microsoft has done positive things for consumers and the computer 
industry as a whole by setting standards, but in doing so, they have 
extracted monopoly profits from consumers and businesses. Look at it 
from a business perspective no debt and a lot of cash.
    January 10, 2002
    Dear Mr. Dell:
    Regarding RMA 23497302
    Recently, I purchased a Dell Dimension 4300S computer. I 
received the free memory upgrade to 256K and I upgraded the video 
card and harddrive. Although I already have 4 computers, I was very 
excited to receive this one because I heard that Microsoft XP was a 
very stable operating environment and I was having problems with 
Disney Magic Artist (Classic) crashing on windows 98.
    I received the computer; set it up; and installed Disney Magic 
Artist and tried to run it. Magic Artist would not load and computer 
told me I could send a report over the internet to Microsoft and 
Microsoft would look into the problem. I tried this but this did not 
work either. I am assuming this did not work because I did not set 
up internet access set up on this machine.
    Then I search XP help for compatibility issues and found that I 
could flip a switch to get the program to run in Windows 95 mode. 
After flipping the switch and rebooting, the program still did not 
run. I was slightly frustrated at this point. So I decided I would 
poke around and see if pinball was on the computer. I found that it 
was and I started the game. Immediately, I noticed that the ball 
spit in two when it was halfway down the pinball table. I had played 
this pinball game at least 3 years ago on a windows NT machine which 
was not designed to play games and there were never any graphics 
problems with that game. At this point, I decided that I had my fill 
of the new computer and new operating system.
    Regrettably, I decided to package the computer up and send it 
back to Dell. I would have kept the computer if I would not have 
immediately experienced the apparent design defects.
    In closing, I would like to add that it is very unfortunate that 
Microsoft continues to use consumers as testers of their programs. 
Dell has lost a sale because of poor operating system design by 
Microsoft (and possibly undersizing the video engine by Dell). I 
hope that in the future your sales are not impacted because 
Microsoft or any other software vendor has not done sufficient 
testing to find the bugs in their programs. It appears that when a 
product is released too early some companies rely on free testers 
(the public) to uncover the bugs. If a consumer purchased a car and 
the steering, headlights, turn signals or any other item had 
intermittent problems a recall would be done an a fix provided. When 
a computer is purchased, the consumer gets the opportunity to talk 
with a technician over the phone and fix the problem themselves. I 
do not have time to spend with a technician on the phone fixing a 
brand new computer and neither do a million other consumers.
    Thanks in advance for reading my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin O?Hehir



MTC-00013553

From: mycoman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    As both and educator and computer professional, it is my 
informed opinion that the U.S.D.O.J. should NOT accept Microsoft's 
proposed settlement. As has already been shown, this will only 
increase their monopoly, by allowing them to corner a market niche 
which may be the only competitive one left. Thank you for the 
opportunity to contribute my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    David Moss
    [email protected]
    6 Park Avenue
    Red Hook, NY 12571



MTC-00013554

From: Tim Rittgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir or madam:
    If Microsoft wishes to settle this case, please do not allow 
them to use what may

[[Page 25797]]

look like generosity to capture a new market share. Microsoft has 
proposed to offer millions of dollars of support to the education 
market, which I fully support. However, this cannot come in the form 
of free Microsoft software which would cost Microsoft next to 
nothing to provide while at the same time extending their monopoly 
into the schools. If this settlement is considered by the DOJ, 
please ensure that Microsoft pays in cash, not assets, with no 
strings attached, so that the schools are free to choose the 
software that they need in each individual situation. Please take 
these issues into consideration, and thank you for your time.
    Tim Rittgers
    30757 120th St.
    Cedar Falls, IA 50613



MTC-00013555

From: Jesse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United States Department of Justice, I'm a self-employed 
computer consultant working in eastern Washington. As a small 
business owner/operator, I don't have much time to spend on 
superfluous activities like composing long editorial diatribes. 
After all, I have to be the janitor, accountant, tax lawyer, bread 
winner, well. . .  you get the picture.
    In any case, I felt compelled to add my voice to this issue of 
the ``Microsoft Settlement.'' I've been in the the computer and 
information technology industry for 18 years. In those 18 years, I 
have personally seen how the Microsoft monopoly has developed, from 
its embryonic beginnings in the early '80s, to its stranglehold in 
present time.
    I am a true believer of capitalism, and hold dearly to the idea 
that you get what you work for. But when a company controls all but 
5 percent of the world's computer systems, something needs to be 
done. This is not speculation or exaggeration, it is a fact. When a 
customer, or supplier, can order any computer system they wish from 
a top-tier PC manufacturer, as long as it comes with a Microsoft 
Operating System, it's gone too far. Allowing Microsoft to continue 
on its way will only hasten the development of the Microsoft 
refrigerator, Microsoft Motor Company, Microsoft Burger King, and 
Microsoft Grocery Store line.
    The computer and information technology industry needs true 
competition in the operating system and productivity software 
markets. Please add my voice to those that hope for a settlement 
that would at minimum, break Microsoft into two parts, operating 
systems, and productivity applications. Anything less than a 
breakup, will do nothing to stop the monopoly. Even then, the two 
Microsofts would own their respective markets, but at least it would 
hopefully put an end to the unholy alliance between the two, and 
allow some semblance of competition.
    Best Regards,
    Jesse Mireles Yakima, WA



MTC-00013556

From: Richard Meckley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:31mp
Subject: microsoft settlement
please see attached
301 Shores way Boone,
North Carolina 28607
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have heard about the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the federal government. It seems like a reasonable solution to me, 
and I urge you to support it.
    Microsoft is giving up a lot here; even agreeing to give easier 
access to programs from competing companies, and changing how it 
handles prices it charges to computer makers. Microsoft will, for 
example, give coding to its competitors, which will allow them to 
place their own products on a Windows-based system. Also, Microsoft 
will agree not to retaliate against companies that use or promote 
non-Microsoft software. Clearly, this settlement doesn't let 
Microsoft off easily. It's time to get this lawsuit behind us. The 
settlement offers the best opportunity to get past this lawsuit and 
get the nation focused on business again. As such, I support it.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Meckley



MTC-00013557

From: Russell C. Hess
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement 
with Microsoft. Allowing them to pay their fines in their own 
products only enables them to further restrict the market the 
operate in. It is unfair to but our public schools in the position 
of having to choose what they may consider to be an inferior product 
because they are free. Perhaps making Microsoft pay their fines in 
cash and establish an endowment that would make grants annually to 
schools in need to buy whatever technology products they desire 
would be a better solution. I believe to allow Microsoft to get away 
with a plea bargain that essentially strengthens their monopoly is 
foolish.
    The Justice Department should make an example of them. Breaking 
the law is breaking the law.
    Russell C. Hess
    610 2nd Ave. NW
    Plainview, MN 55964
    507-534-4448



MTC-00013558

From: David-James Fernandes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Although I am not a United States citizen, I am a Canadian who 
is very concerned about the lenient settlement the US DOJ has come 
up with in the Microsoft Anti-Trust case.
    While I've followed this case with much interest in the past, I 
was provoked to register my opinion with you today after learning 
that Microsoft had procured 'intellectual property rights' for 
assets from Silicon Graphics Incorporated last year.
    It GREATLY concerns me because SGI currently owns the licensing 
rights to OpenGL--a set of 3D graphics APIs that much of the 3D 
industry is built upon. Though the deal was made by completely legal 
measures (a backroom deal between SGI and Microsoft), the 
implications of Microsoft owning OpenGL are tremendous.
    Microsoft currently develops (and forces down many a 
manufacturer's throat) their own 3D APIs called 'Direct X'. OpenGL 
is a direct competitor and is free for developers to implement. Its 
foundation is also a type of open source project, as the name would 
imply. Apple's Mac OS X operating system uses OpenGL as a core 
technology as do hundreds of pieces of software from scientific 
applications to 3D video games.
    Should Microsoft terminate OpenGL, it would destroy many 
companies that make software with OpenGL exclusively. It would 
automatically make Microsoft a leader in 3D software where it had 
very little presence in the past. It would also severely limit the 
options for developers and force them eventually to license Direct X 
from Microsoft--a closed API.
    I sincerely urge you to reconsider your soft settlement and side 
with the 9 opposing states who are calling for far more appropriate 
action like the break-up of the company into smaller pieces and the 
unbundling of ``middleware'' products from the operating system. I 
also urge you to remove clauses and language that give Microsoft the 
ability to decide for itself what 'middleware' is and what is a 
monopolistic takeover and what is not.
    Microsoft's size and budget as well as their buy and destroy 
attitude have already severely altered the software landscape for 
the worse. Please show them the United States won't tolerate such 
blatantly anti-competitive behavior from ANY company. Your decision 
here affects far more than just US citizens.
    Thank-you,
    David-James Fernandes
    Graphic Designer,
    Communications Branch,
    Canadian Union of Public Employees
    21 Florence St.
    Ottawa, ON, K2P 0W6
    613-237-1590 x.322
    Fax: 613-569-0152
    http://www.cupe.ca/



MTC-00013559

From: Diane Cunningham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:32pm
Subject: This case must be settled
    The Microsoft case has dragged on for far too long. The reason 
for the protracted prosecution of Microsoft is that other companies 
and individuals who have found it difficult or who have failed to 
compete successfully in a higly competetive marketplace insist on 
depicting their failures as the result for agregious acts by 
Microsoft. The Justice Department should consider the source of some 
of these complaints before

[[Page 25798]]

punishing those who succeed in the free enterprise system. The 
Justice Department should consider the message tht it is sending to 
the American public, the business community and to our youth when 
they consider the punishment that will be issued against Microsoft. 
The message should be exclusively about monopoly. It should not be 
about issuing rewards to those who not only were not damaged by 
Microsoft but who would not exist if it were not for Microsoft. It 
should be about asuaging the ailing egoes of those who could not 
keep the pace and it should not be about delivering revenue into the 
hands of those who have not earned it, have not been damaged and who 
do not deserve to receive such benefits.
    Microsoft--whether the Dept. of Justice likes it or not--has 
done more to initiate and carry on the technology revolution than 
has any other company or sector of this country. Let us be done with 
this witch hunt and proceed with that revolution. The Justice 
Department has issued strict guideling for the future business 
transactions of Microsoft. That combined with the anticipated 
penalties should be sufficient. The Justice Department should put an 
end to this trial; stop supporting an untold number of attorneys--
the only true benefactors of all of this; and tell the nine states 
to go home and balance their budgets without the aid of Microsoft.
    The greatest benefactors of Microsoft and it's work have been 
the American people. Microsoft has opened a new world, created 
inumerable new jobs and enhanced the lives of the American public. 
The Department of Justice is supposed to act for the benefit of the 
American public in cases such as this. Not on behalf of a select 
group of wealthy private interest groups. Perhaps it is time for the 
Department of Justice to remember their marching orders. If the 
American people were truly polled, this would have been over long 
ago.



MTC-00013560

From: Erik Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to point out that if the DOJ backs off on this 
issue that the future of the US is in the hands of Microsoft. You 
can say goodbye to any personal freedoms and privacy in the future. 
This company, has thumbed its nose in the face of the DOJ and 
President Bush appears to be in complete support of the illegal 
actions and behaviour of this corporation. Their intention is to 
have a piece of their hardware and/or software in every home and 
once that is done, they intend to fleece the country. Microsoft must 
be required to pay a fine that is substantial to them, it must be in 
cash and it should go to the people that have had to suffer with 
their inadequate software. Then the company should be split into at 
least four seperate companies. The software division for operating 
systems, the software division for web browsers, the UltimateTV 
division and now, the XBox division. This illegal practice of tying 
the software together and making competitiors software run worse in 
their operating system cannot be allowed to continue. The problem is 
that Microsoft has already released a successor to the software that 
they are currently on trial for, so the decision must have a far 
reaching grasp to stop them from doing what they've already done 
again with the release of Windows XP.
    Thank you,
    Erik N Snyder



MTC-00013561

From: Rosner, Eric
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  5:34pm
Subject: Hello
    Hello, first, I think it is great that the Gov. is requesting 
people's feedback. . . .:)
    I just wanted to say that MS makes fine products but by not 
having a choice of operating systems or browser applications, I feel 
that they are infringing on my rights to choose from the different 
OS systems. . . .I say break 'em up into tiny companies. . . .no 
company should have too much power. . . .cause as we all know power 
corrupts. . .  thanks for reading my comments. . . 
    Eric Rosner
    Director of Animation
    Tvland/Nick at Nite



MTC-00013562

From: Allan Nadler, Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
57420 Hynes Drive
Plaquemine, Louisiana 70764
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Tunney Act mandates that after a settlement to an antitrust 
suit, in which the Department of Justice is involved, there must be 
a 60-day period of public comment and review before a decision is 
made final. I am submitting this letter to make you aware that I am 
in favor of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice.
    I am a believer of the free market system in which the 
government takes a hands-off approach. I did not see anything like 
this over the past three years. The government claimed to be helping 
people when they brought Microsoft to court, but were they really? 
During the time from the announcement of the antitrust suit till 
now, thousands have lost their jobs, companies have been closing at 
alarming rates, and our economy has sunk into a recession. This has 
to stop, and that is why I support the settlement. I agree with the 
part of the settlement that prevents Microsoft from retaliating 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
Microsoft's. This will open-up the industry and encourage 
competition.
    I appreciate this outlet so my opinion can be heard. I fully 
support the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Department 
of Justice.
    Sincerely,
    Allan Nadler, Jr.



MTC-00013563

From: Mike Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:42pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    This is one of the largest companies in the world, with the 
richest man in the world as the leader. They can afford to pay for 
their crimes. Come on, we're (the people of the US) counting on you 
to serve justice on the monopoly that Microsoft is. Don't let this 
arrogant monopoly get away with out a lesson. You and I both know 
that they will not change their ways if you don't really sock it to 
'em. : )
    Thanks,
    Mike Evans



MTC-00013564

From: Abbott, Christopher
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement public comment
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel the proposed settlement with Microsoft falls short in 
several areas. I also do not feel that this proposal, though it be 
expeditious and favored by approximately half the plaintiffs, to 
represent the desires of the American public. I believe this for 
several reasons.
    1--Microsoft has been found to be a persistent monopolist by the 
prior Court(s) in this case. Through Microsoft's written 
communications, court depositions, and by their very actions they 
have shown this to be true. Indeed, we have seen one of the other 
pending legal actions against them have a settlement brought forth, 
just like this case. However, it was turned down by the presiding 
Court due to it being seemingly skewed towards aiding their 
monopoly. What kind of a company, under trial for antitrust 
activities, puts forth a settlement, in any legal proceeding, that 
aids its monopolistic behavior? From all this evidence the public 
has seen and heard, how can we believe that the company is 
negotiating in anything close to good faith? I would almost have to 
put forth that any agreement Microsoft agrees to is not one worth 
accepting.
    2--This judgment, while achieving several things that will 
hinder Microsoft in certain areas, does no where near encompass the 
future of the company. Many industry analysts and pundits have 
stated that Microsoft is ``betting it's future'' on .Net and web 
services. Why then does the settlement deal with mostly OS-based 
issues, which are perhaps Microsoft's past and partial present but 
in no way it's future? This kind of a monopolist is different from 
others prosecuted in the country's past. There is no way Standard 
Oil would ever do else but produce oil, up and down the supply 
chain. That can not be said of Microsoft. When they began, they were 
a software company. Then they became an operating system software 
company. Then they branched into multimedia services. Now they are 
pushing towards web-based services. While the OS is the cash cow 
that feeds their monopolistic activities now, it will not be in the 
future, other things will be. The rendering of this

[[Page 25799]]

court will mean nothing if it does not take that into account. And 
Microsoft knows this and is expecting this to be the case.
    3--I believe in the guiding principles of capitalism. Indeed, I 
have several friends who work for Microsoft and I wish them no ill 
will. To me, it would seem that the problem with Microsoft is not 
the programmers or the people who work for it. No, the problem seems 
to be the people who run Microsoft. From their predatory activities 
to garner a monopoly on the desktop, to their railroading OEM's to 
utilize their software alone, to their most recent leveraging of 
their monopoly by restructuring their licensing agreements to 
attempt to force businesses to increase the speed of their upgrade 
cycle; Microsoft has consistently shown that the people who are 
guiding them are ruthless profit-mongers with no morals, who do not 
have the best interests of their users or the American public at 
heart. Why then, is there not any provision in the settlement to 
deal with the actual cause of the problem? There should at least be 
a provision in the agreement for the future punishment of Microsoft 
executives, should they be found to continue their monopolistic 
practices, albeit beyond the scope of this agreement. I personally 
feel there should also be an agreement for the punishment of current 
executives for their actions, but I have little hope that shall 
occur.
    In the end, Microsoft is a monopolist, period. End of story. 
While I am not suggesting that the example of Standard Oil should 
guide the Court's decision, I do say Microsoft should come away from 
these proceedings with little more than a slap on the wrist. 
Otherwise, I may as well begin ignoring everything I hear about 
Linux, Apple, IBM, Sun and the rest, for it won't be too long before 
they are nothing but ``monopoly shelters'' for Microsoft to hide 
behind. Microsoft will garner as much of the market as it feels it 
can take before the government steps in and then will rest on its 
laurels, growing fat (as it is now with it's $36+ billion in accrued 
unused cash), stagnating the industry and the information technology 
revolution as a whole in the United States.
    Please, I ask the Court to do the right thing. Reject this 
settlement and force the parties to go back to the table at least. 
Perhaps even push them to follow in a similar fashion to the 
dissenting states. They have the right idea for limiting this 
monopolist and it's unscrupulous executives from continuing to 
perpetrate their illegal activities on the American public. Thank 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Abbott
    MSG--Information Protection
    [email protected]
    Phone: (314) 577-7213



MTC-00013565

From: James Justin Fergerson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft1s proposed settlement for the antitrust case is 
outrageous. They are, with their proposal, thumbing their noses at 
the Justice Department. Their proposal has practically no 
disciplinary value and would unfairly increase their market share in 
an already competitive area (the education market). This action 
would also seriously cripple Apple Computer, a cooperative company 
that has driven the computer industry to continue to innovate. In my 
opinion, the Justice Department should discard their proposal 
outright.
    A hefty monetary fine on Microsoft would not be an adequate 
punishment. Microsoft could just raise prices momentarily to cover 
their losses and still continue to do business as usual, making 
their monopoly stronger. What I would suggest is to, once again, 
look into breaking up Microsoft. It is a very viable idea and would 
be easier to ensure that they do not continue to practice business 
illegally. Microsoft can be divided into three parts very easily: 
Operating Systems, software, hardware. In my opinion, this is the 
best method of punishing Microsoft not only because it curtails 
their strong-arm business tactics, but because it benefits the 
public with increased choices on the market.
    Please remember that Microsoft has been taken through anti-trust 
suits before and been found to be conducting business in an overly 
hostile manner. In each case, Microsoft has broken their promises to 
do better and ignored restrictions placed on them. It is time to 
deal with this company and put it in its rightful place.
    Thank you,
    James Justin Fergerson
    2712 SW 34th St. #62
    Gainesville, FL 32608
    (352) 256-4785



MTC-00013566

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    2258 Pine Terrace Court
    Grand Junction, CO 81503
    16 January 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I think that this whole case stinks. I can't believe that 
Microsoft was even charged with this in the first place. Microsoft 
is being attacked for being successful and should instead be praised 
for helping out the economy like they do. Microsoft is now going to 
have to share its source code for Windows, which will essentially 
give freely to competitors what Microsoft worked hard to develop. 
Microsoft doesn't need to be punished any more than that.
    Also, I hope that you do whatever it takes to get the other 
states that refuse to join onto the settlement to sign on and do 
what's in the public's best interest. I appreciate you taking the 
time to listen to my comments on this issue. I know that many people 
feel the same way and I hope you take our opinions into account.
    Sincerely,
    Carole M. Bullick



MTC-00013567

From: Allan Herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/17  12:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is contrary to every sentencing principle. 
Primarily, it flies in the face of both general and specific 
deterrence. This will deter no one from abusing monopoly power, most 
obviously not Microsoft. Rather, it encourages disrespect for the 
law and fair competition because there is no negative consequence to 
the illegal behaviour. A monopoly that uses its power to crush 
competition can now look forward to:
--no punitive sanctions IF it is prosecuted,
--having conditions of doubtful effectiveness imposed on it, that 
MAY hinder some of its future malfeasance.
    If this settlement is concluded, it will beg the public to 
conclude thaat it was motivated by politics rather than principle--
that this administration looks the other way when its friends do 
wrong.
    Thank you for your consideration.



MTC-00013568

From: Claire Celsi
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/17/02  5:46pm
Subject: Tom Miller of Iowa
    Please read the attached document regarding Tom Miller, Iowa's 
fearless Attorney General, and how he stands up to Microsoft.
Claire Celsi
Des Moines, Iowa
CC: Ben Hildebrandt
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Tom Miller, Attorney General of the State of Iowa, My hero.
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your 
agreement to settle the United States Department of Justice 
antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has 
little incentive to change any of its practices. Their concessions 
of handing over some operating systems code and offering 
manufacturers some sovereignty over Media Player amounts to little 
more than a light slap on the wrists for a multi-billion dollar 
company. I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the 
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged 
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill 
Gates' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this company or 
protect against future gauging.
    I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the 
other eight state attorneys general see the many loopholes and 
problems with enforcement that does little to affect change in the 
computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three 
companies may not be the proper response, but either is this. 
Microsoft is spreading its dangerous monopoly into everything it 
touches. I currently have Qwest DSL, which is bad enough, but they 
are forcing me to take MSN now even though they can't even help me 
transition my account. They (MSN) are so

[[Page 25800]]

inept that for now they have agreed to let me remain on Qwest. Then, 
they have the GALL to put stuff on their website like ``Learn why 
one million people just switched to MSN. .'' Don't you think that is 
a bit misleading? I could go on and on. Microsoft is like testicular 
cancer: Slow growing, but it kills you just as dead someday. Your 
decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is a 
mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please 
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
    I wonder if Arthur Anderson also audits Microsoft? Hmmm.
    Sincerely,
    Claire Celsi
    743 37th St
    Des Moines IA 50312
    515-277-1118



MTC-00013569

From: Jensen Gelfond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    I'd just like to comment on the Microsoft Settlement. I believe 
that Microsoft should not get away with giving any sort of software 
or hardware directly to the schools. This will, as we already know, 
illegally encroach on Apple's leading position in the education 
computer market. In addition, even if Microsoft only offered 
software compatible with Mac and Windows, they would still be 
neglecting the market for Linux software (which they do not 
manufacture software for). Even though Linux is not a hugely popular 
OS, it is becoming increasingly used in schools as training for 
systems administration. I think the best way to settle this would be 
for Microsoft to give cold, hard cash to the school and let the 
schools themselves decide what to buy, instead of being obviously 
coerced by Microsoft to use their products instead of the 
competition's. Thank you for listening to me.
    Jensen Gelfond
    20 Pleasant Grove Rd.
    Long Valley, NJ 07853
    908-852-0591



MTC-00013570

From: Al Pierce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Personally, I believe that the proposed settlement does little 
or nothing to change Microsofts' business practices. I would 
reccomend that you review their recent purchase of intellectual 
property from Silicon Graphics Inc. The pertinent point is not the 
purchase itself, but the leverage it will give Microsoft in forcing 
hardware vendors to abandon support of an open source graphics 
standard, OpenGL, in favour of Microsofts' own proprietary graphics 
engine, Direct X, or similar. They are simply up to their old 
tricks, even in the middle of this so called ``settlement''. Nothing 
has been settled, except perhaps, the question of whether Microsoft 
is powerful enough to intimidate even the United States Department 
of Justice.
    I have absolutely no doubt that Microsoft will use any and all 
means to eliminate any company, technology, or open source solution 
that they perceive to be an obstacle to their total domination of 
any market they set their sights on. They have demonstrated this 
behavior time and time again and will continue to do so until the 
company is restructured such that it can no longer exert such power 
over it's competition. Splitting up the company is the only sensible 
remedy, and the amount of money, certainly in the billions of 
dollars, that Microsoft has cost American industry due to the shoddy 
performance and security of their software products might serve as 
an appropriate starting point when considering punishment for their 
misconduct.
    Al Pierce
    Senior Staff Engineer



MTC-00013571

From: Brad Bower
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    News sources confirmed that the strange anomaly in SGI's SECC 
filing was a result of the sale of all its 3D intellectual property 
to Microsoft. Please, don't let Microsoft kill the OpenGL standard! 
They can knock it off whenever they want now, and FORCE developers 
to use their own, proprietary DirectX and Direct3D which companies 
have to LICENSE from Microsoft! They are only extending their 
monopoly to be the ONLY company with an existing 3d standard.
    Microsoft is going to continue this kind of behavior . . . it 
completely negates their competition, and any future competition. 
They've done it before, there are SO many cases of it it's almost 
comical. I think I speak for all gamers, non-Windows-enthusiasts, 3d 
programmers, and designers, when I say that Microsoft needs to be 
split up into enough companies that smaller companies can again 
thrive in the technology sector.
    Again, please don't let Microsoft skate by with this, Department 
of Justice. :(
    Best Regards,
    Brad Bower



MTC-00013572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Where would we be without all the good Microsoft has done for 
us? Let's get on and beyond this, stop cluttering up our courts. The 
best thing for our economy would certainly be to get on with 
business and stop all this monkey business.
    Constance S.Wenger



MTC-00013573

From: MARC BELTRAME
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please consider the attached letter
Marc Beltrame
Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C.
317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200
Des Moines, Iowa 50309-4195
Ph: 515-246-5531
Cell: 515-229-9134
Fax: 515-246-1474
http://www.whitfieldlaw.com
    WHITFIELD & EDDY P.L.C.
    ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
    317 Sixth Avenue, Suite 1200
    Des Moines, IA 50309-4195
    Telephone 515-288-6041
    Facsimile 515-246-1474
    www.whitfieldlaw.com
    Gary Gately Thomas Henderson Mark R. Gray * Drew J. Gentsch Of 
Counsel: David L. Phipps Megan M. Antenucci Jason M. Casini Stephen 
D. Marso Harley A. Whitfield Benjamin B. Ullem Thomas S. Reavely 
Roscoe A. Ries, Jr. Theodore C. Simms. II A. Roger Witke Robert L. 
Fanter Gary A. Norton J. Campbell Helton Timothy J. Walker Bernard 
L. Spaeth, Jr. Frank M. Grenard Anjela A. Shutts Mt. Pleasant: Wendy 
Carlson William L. Fairbank Mark V. Hanson Stephen E. Doohen Philip 
McCormick George H. Frampton Robert G. Bridges Maureen Roach Tobin 
Sean A. Pelletier Danny L. Cornell Jaki K. Samuelson August B. 
Landis Jon Hoffmann Retired: Kevin M. Reynolds Richard J. Kirschman 
Anne L. Willits John C. Eddy Thomas H. Burke John F. Fatino Marc T. 
Beltrame
    Direct Line/E-Mail 246-5531
    [email protected]
    Refer to our File Number
    January 27, 2002
    Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I write to expressly convey my recommendation that you 
reconsider the recent decision to settle the United States 
Department of Justice's antitrust lawsuit against the Microsoft 
Corporation. You may be aware that no fewer than ten (10) consumer 
groups disagree with the decision to settle this lawsuit because 
such a move leaves Microsoft with little incentive to change its 
unlawful practices. I am proud that Iowa's Attorney General, Tom 
Miller, rejected the settlement agreement. Attorney General Miller 
and the other state attorneys general are wise to see the many 
loopholes and enforcement issues this settlement leave open.
    Sincerely,
    Marc T. Beltrame
    cc: Iowa Attorney General
    Also with Offices: 110 N. Jefferson, Suite 101, Mt. Pleasant, 
Iowa 52641-2016 . 319-385-9522
    *202 S.W. Cherry Street, Ankeny, Iowa 50021 . 515-964-3633



MTC-00013574

From: Thale, Jim S
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  5:51pm

[[Page 25801]]

Subject: what settlement?
    I am more than a little disappointed with the alleged 
``settlement'' with Microsoft. I see daily how their ``Josef 
Goebbels P.R. method'' has effected the people of this country. Most 
of us are too tired, lazy or ignorant to notice what they have been 
doing all of these years.
    We are trying to save money and keep secure by eliminating all 
traces of Microsoft from our networks and it's working quite well. I 
wish that Microsoft would be split into several business units so 
that there might be some true competition in this country.
    Thank you for your efforts nonetheless,
    Jim
    Jim Thale
    WBBM TV Engineering Dept.
    630 N. McClurg Ct.
    Chicago, IL 60611
    (312) 202-3416



MTC-00013575

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a concern that competing interests to Microsoft have 
called in their respective congressman and are making the settlement 
a circus. Please base the decision on what is best for the consumer, 
not for Sun Microsystems and AOL, etc.
    Regards,
    Peter F. Campbell



MTC-0013576

From: Cody Michel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  5:58pm
Subject: no subject>
    Fry the bastards!
    The only reason they'e as big as they are is from plagiarism. It 
copies from Apple.



MTC-00013577

From: Kevin L. Gray
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dept. of Justice--
    I cannot believe that this case has progressed to this point. 
Why does the US Government attempt to take down one of the most 
successful corporations in the world when daily the competitive 
market requires that Microsoft continue to innovate? If Microsoft is 
required to breakup or even to open up their operating system to 
others, consumers worldwide will be harmed because the defacto world 
standard of communications will be harmed. Look at what we are 
capable of doing today. This message is coming via email. In the 
early 1990's your only means of conducting email was Compuserve and 
AOL. Today, you can still send your email via Compuserve or AOL, and 
you can utilize about 100 different means to send your email as well 
(including Microsoft's products). Microsoft didn't harm this process 
(or takeover this process). It facilitated it through a common 
platform for computers to communicate. That common platform could 
have been (and is today) Unix just as easily as it was MS-DOS/
Windows.
    This case needs to be settled, and settled immediately. It is 
not good for our high-tech economy to have this circus continue any 
longer. Pressure needs to be brought to the remaining states that 
have not decided to participate in the settlement. Please do the 
right thing for our economy, and our competitiveness in this new 
worldwide economy--SETTLE IT NOW!
    Thank you for your attention to my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Gray
    Anchorage, Alaska



MTC-00013578

From: Howard C. Chastain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this so called settlement is a joke. Talk about throwing 
taxpayer money down a rat hole! You should have broked Microsoft up. 
. . . Howard



MTC-00013579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    By its very nature, a ``settlement'' should address the problems 
in the original complaint. This settlement does not address the 
monopolistic practices of Microsoft. The fact that Microsoft has 
stifled competition has been a given in the software industry for 
many years. This suit was filed to stop these practices. Many 
competing (and arguably better) technologies and products, such as 
Lotus, Netscape, Borland's development products and Java are not 
addressed. This settlement is yet another insult to those of us who 
have faith in the US judicial system. Most of the competetive 
advantages enjoyed by Microsoft are left in place. They may still 
bundle more features into their operating system that used to be 
separate and competetive applications. Their application developers 
still have huge advantages over those with similar products. By 
allowing these practices to go unpunished, you are ignoring the laws 
that the courts are in place to protect.
    Larry Peterson
    Senior Software Developer
    Autodesk Corporation



MTC-00013580

From: edward powell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 17, 2002
Renetta Hesse, Esquire
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I want to write today to urge Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve 
the settlement which has been proposed between the Department of 
Justice plus nine state attorneys general and Microsoft. This action 
would end the federal antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft and, I am 
proud to say, the state lawsuit filed in my home state of North 
Carolina as well. First of all, as an attorney, a former state 
legislator and once commissioner of a state agency in North 
Carolina, I am fully aware of the consequences when government 
prosecutors seek to take major legal action against a major 
corporation, especially one the size of Microsoft. Unless the case 
is very good, which the Microsoft case certainly was not, the 
proceedings can drag on much longer than necessary, using up 
unnecessary tax dollars and causing undue turmoil both for the 
company and the government agency involved.
    That is why I believe that when a case of this nature can be 
settled, it should be. From what I see reading the summary of the 
settlement, it is clearly the case that both sides have won key 
concessions. It is clear that Microsoft must provide ``guaranteed 
flexibility'' and must not stand in the way of computer 
manufacturers distributing Microsoft products and other companies' 
products on the same machine. Microsoft must guarantee more 
flexibility in disclosing technical information for those who use 
Microsoft servers, middleware products as well as end users. For 
enforcement, the settlement creates an independent Technical 
Committee with unlimited staff and on-site access to the entire 
Microsoft campus.
    I can't imagine that this is not an excellent settlement for the 
federal government which spent $30 million of taxpayers' money and 
more than five years on this case. Nine states' attorneys general 
have agreed and I wish the other nine would as well.
    Thank for your kind consideration of my opinion on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Edward L. Powell



MTC-00013581

From: Raj Chand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Hi,
    I cannot believe that the U.S. government are not going to tear 
Microsoft apart for years of bullying and abuse of of their 
monopolistic position. They now have access to SGI's 3D technology 
which they will use to force OPEN GL out in favour of their own 
proprietry Direct 3D. A cynic would suggest that this makes much of 
the US government look as though it is in Microsoft's pocket. To 
suggest that the best way of punishing them is to give them a 
monopoly in Education is disgusting. Who runs the USA? The 
government? the people? or Microsoft?
    Thanx
    Greatly Insane



MTC-00013582

From: Scott Elkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not satisfied with Microsoft's proposed settlement. They 
have used unfair practices to expand their market share, and this 
proposal would only continue to foster their undeserved growth. A 
fair settlement does not have to be crippling to Microsoft, but it 
should be punitive enough to

[[Page 25802]]

discourage their shady business practices. I cannot, in any way, 
discover how this settlement could be considered in the long run as 
anything less than a reward.
    Scott Elkins



MTC-00013583

From: Tyson Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a college student, and I have essentially grown up with the 
computer industry. I cannot fathom why the United States government, 
a supposed voice of the people, could accept a settlement that more 
than a dozen states, let alone millions of people, completely 
disagree with. It doesn't sound like representative government to 
me, but maybe I should have studied more in civics.
    The Government has a important chance here to influence an 
industry that is being squashed by Microsoft, and affect the minds 
of a public (particularly my generation) who see nothing but greed, 
favors and dirty politics in the institutions which claim to 
represent us. This settlement is a joke, and I'm guessing the 
executives at Microsoft are laughing the most. Unless Microsoft is 
forced to stop its anti-competitive practices, companies with true 
ingenuity and creativity can never hope to survive--let alone 
flourish to a small fraction of what Microsoft currently dominates.
    As a consumer, a voter and a citizen I stand strongly against 
this settlement and feel cheated by a government that is willing to 
accept it.
    Tyson Evans
    [email protected]



MTC-00013584

From: E.Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:05pm
Subject: Money is no object.
    Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the 
settlement. I am a person of few words, especially when I am not 
entirely embroiled with the details of this case. I would rather 
convey more of a personal and professional take on this matter. 
Microsoft has created a generation of people that feel victimized 
every time they load Microsoft products onto their machines. Many of 
us outside the corporate structure have little time and resources to 
deal with the inadequacies of their products, but since Microsofty 
has embedded itself as the industry standard, it is near impossible 
to be productive with any other software.
    Making them pay exuberant amounts of money is almost ineffectual 
for what they lose in a year to this case, they will make back in 
three years with little or no serious change within their company. 
Bill Gates and his close friend Steve Ballmer, will be able to walk 
through this and continue to prosper. Microsoft is still a major 
influence on all levels, and I think the punishment should adhere to 
all of these levels. I am not requesting a complete overhaul, or 
disassembly of this company. I would rather see it humbled before 
the law, for in this professional computer user's opinion, they will 
continue to laugh their way to the bank no matter what obstacles 
they will step over. It is already the opinion within the tech world 
that our justice system's lack of current technology and trends 
allowed Microsoft to skate by on ignorance and misinformation.
    In Summary, I believe the correct punishment should cover the 
crime. If Microsoft has made billions of dollars for it's anti-
competitive practices than it should relinquish that which connected 
it to the money. I truly believe if you take away thei swagger on 
invincibility, they will come off of their cash lined cloud, and 
join the rest of us on the ground and really see what they have done 
to those who depend on them. They frighten all of us because if they 
do not fear the law, how can the common programmer or elementary 
teacher make a stand. Thank you and good day.
    E. Palmer
    IT / K-8 School Teacher--Humboldt County Office of Education



MTC-00013585

From: jrod(a)mindsping.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:23pm
Subject: The Death of OpenGL
    Dear DOJ,
    I'm writing to inform you that yesterday Microsoft gained the 
licensing to most of the SGI OpenGL libraries that are in existence. 
What are they planning on doing with this? If the past is a model to 
go by, they are attempting to kill one of the widest used OPEN 
graphics programming libraries (everyone can use them, they are an 
open standard, not proprietary) in favor of their own proprietary 
DirectX. Please, Please, Please, this cannot happen!!!!! We as 
computer users and developers should be free to develop and use open 
standards that can be shared by all for the mutal benefit of the 
computer industry and the consumer. It will be the consumer who will 
have to pay the price of Microsoft dominance of the computer 
graphics industry, because we will have to foot the bill for all the 
fees, etc. that Microsoft will use in its tyrannical use of DirectX. 
They cannot control the market and kill off competition! The power 
to prevent this lies in your hands. Please, for the sake of the 
counsumer and the computer software/hardware development community, 
don't let Microsoft kill off open software/hardware standards in 
favor of their own proprietary and closed systems.
    Jason Rodriguez
    Computer Graphics Designer
    Macintosh/SGI/UNIX user
    Virginia Beach, VA



MTC-00013586

From: Elaine (038) Theo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A FINFlash Alert: January 28 Deadline for comments to DoJ
    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-settle.htm.
    My husband and I are retired and with the flucation in our 
Microsoft stock have lost a great deal of money. My son-in-law took 
his own life on December 29, 2001 due to his severe losses in 
Microsoft stock. Please settle this matter in your suit against 
Microsoft . They have done nothing illegal. I do not want my husband 
to have to resume his medical practice at the age of 76.
    Dr. Theodore Markellos and Mrs. Elaine Markellos



MTC-00013587

From: Walter Dufresne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    Please, among other things, make the monopolist Microsoft 
purchase and distribute software that competes with MS's monopoly. 
This software might include both operating systems software and 
application programs software. The recipients might include schools, 
libraries, and community service and cultural organizations.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Dufresne, Photographer
    31 Montgomery Place, Brooklyn, NY 11215-2342 USA
    tel: +1.718.622.1901 fax: +1.718.789.1452
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00013588

From: Frank Restly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    III. Prohibited Conduct
    H. Starting at the earlier of the release of Service Pack 1 for 
Windows XP or 12 months after the submission of this Final Judgment 
to the Court, Microsoft shall:
    1. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily accessible from the 
desktop or Start menu such as an Add/Remove icon) and OEMs (via 
standard preinstallation kits) to enable or remove access to each 
Microsoft Middleware Product or Non-Microsoft Middleware Product by 
(a) displaying or removing icons, shortcuts, or menu entries on the 
desktop or Start menu, or anywhere else in a Windows Operating 
System Product where a list of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for 
applications are generally displayed, except that Microsoft may 
restrict the display of icons, shortcuts, or menu entries for any 
product in any list of such icons, shortcuts, or menu entries 
specified in the Windows documentation as being limited to products 
that provide particular types of functionality, provided that the 
restrictions are non-discriminatory with respect to non-Microsoft 
and Microsoft products; and (b) enabling or disabling automatic 
invocations pursuant to Section III.C.3 of this Final Judgment that 
are used to launch Non-Microsoft Middleware Products or Microsoft 
Middleware Products. The mechanism shall offer the end user a 
separate and unbiased choice with respect to enabling or removing 
access (as described in this subsection III.H.1) and altering 
default invocations (as described in the following subsection 
III.H.2) with regard to each such Microsoft Middleware Product or 
Non-Microsoft Middleware Product and may offer the end-user a 
separate and unbiased choice of enabling or removing access and 
altering default configurations as to all Microsoft

[[Page 25803]]

Middleware Products as a group or all Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Products as a group.
    2. Allow end users (via a mechanism readily available from the 
desktop or Start menu), OEMs (via standard OEM preinstallation 
kits), and Non-Microsoft Middleware Products (via a mechanism which 
may, at Microsoft's option, require confirmation from the end user) 
to designate a Non-Microsoft Middleware Product to be invoked in 
place of that Microsoft Middleware Product (or vice versa) in any 
case where the Windows Operating System Product would otherwise 
launch the Microsoft Middleware Product in a separate Top-Level 
Window and display either (i) all of the user interface elements or 
(ii) the Trademark of the Microsoft Middleware Product.
    3. Ensure that a Windows Operating System Product does not (a) 
automatically alter an OEM's configuration of icons, shortcuts or 
menu entries installed or displayed by the OEM pursuant to Section 
III.C of this Final Judgment 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.
    Begin my comments:
    You know that a simple change in terminology made by Microsoft 
(the ``Start menu'' is now the ``Begin menu'' and the ``desktop'' is 
now the ``playground'' under Windows XP version 2.0) basically voids 
any hope of the end user custom configuring his or her system. 
Notice that these two terms are NOT defined in article VI--
Definitions. Sheesh--and I thought anti-trust law was about giving 
the user a choice.



MTC-00013589

From: Matthew Wilkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:48pm
    this lawmsuit is such a load of crap! a waste of my tax dollars! 
awaste of court time! How Many really important cases could have 
been heardduring this time. the settle ment is more than fair.
    Matt



MTC-00013590

From: Arild Shirazi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I wish to submit a comment, pursuant to the Tunney Act regarding 
the proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft.
    I feel that nothing short of a break-up of Microsoft will remedy 
the abuses of its monopoly in operating system software. The 
proposed remedies do not go far enough in preventing Microsoft from 
expanding its monopoly to other categories of software. As a 
consumer, I feel that the currently proposed settlement will limit 
my choices of software in the future, will stifle innovation, and 
will result in artificially high software prices.
    Sincerely,
    Arild Shirazi
    [email protected]



MTC-00013591

From: John Herber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft has abused it's market position
    To whomever is listening,
    I still feel that a break up of Microsoft would be the best 
solution. It's the only way you can assure that they won't abuse 
their Monopoly position as the dominant OS.
    But since a Break up isn't going to happen, the playing field 
must be leveled. Companies hurt by Microsoft should get some of 
Microsoft's profits. Giving some software to schools is seems nice, 
but how does that help the companies that Microsoft bullied out of 
business. When someone is caught cheating in a game, they don't get 
to keep the winnings they received unfairly. It goes back to the 
players that were cheated. I don't care what the details are, but 
Microsoft should not be allowed to take out the competition. Then 
from on top of those companies remains give some software to some 
schools and act as though they are being charitable. When the real 
motive of there actions is to become an even bigger Monopoly. Can 
they wipe out some other area of business and then plan on giving 
some money away and then that makes it ``all better''. The real 
question is do you want Microsoft to continue to do this. If not, 
then punish them to the point that they say ``we'll never do that 
again''. So far all I can see is encouragement for Microsoft to go 
right on doing what they've always done. This is not the first act 
of abuse, if you don't punish them they will continue to force other 
companies out of business. The fact that their proposed solution to 
the problem was to extend their monopoly into the education market 
proves that they have no remorse. Please send a message to them and 
to other companies. We have made the rules of fair competition, we 
need to make sure all companies follow those rules, and that there 
are consequences for breaking those rules. If there are no 
consequences for abusing Monopoly power, why is the DOJ wasting 
taxpayer's dollars trying to enforce a empty law.
    Thank you,
    John Herber
    IS Manager
    Magnetic Poetry



MTC-00013592

From: Fred Good
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/17/02  6:59pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Good day!
    I've just thumbed through the recommended documents regarding 
the Microsoft case and settlement. The legal aspects of this case 
are rather boggling to the average consumer, but when you boil it 
down it is obvious what is going on. Microsoft has taken advantage 
of millions of consumers, and hence, their own good fortune. I, for 
one, am completely outraged. It is appalling to me that they find 
themselves ``above the law'', or that they believed they could out-
fox the lawmakers of this country. Did Microsoft think it would 
work? Why would they think it could? How stupid do they think our 
government is? Their actions are a slap in the face of capitalism, 
and our judiciary system. Shame on you, Mr. Gates.
    Frederick Good



MTC-00013593

From: Richard Shuren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:08pm
Subject: Comments about Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As regards the Microsoft settlement of its antitrust case, 
please do not let Microsoft get away with merely giving away PC 
products and Microsoft software to satisfy the dollar value of the 
settlement.
    I strongly agree with executives from Apple Computer who have 
pointed out that this action in itself would be anti-competitive in 
that it creates larger market share for Microsoft.
    I am a long time avid Macintosh computer user, and do not want 
to see Microsoft slip away with this token gesture on their part.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Richard Shuren



MTC-00013594

From: Javier Morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:16pm
Subject: suggestion
    I think it would be rather simple:
    Get the PC manufacturers out from under the MS boot.
    1. Give licenses to MS OS to anyone that asks under non-
discriminatory licenses. MS should not be able to use the threat of 
rescinding licenses to prevent computer users from putting software 
from other companies in their boxes.
    2. Allow companies to bundle any software they want with their 
hardware without conditions from MS. If a manufacturer wants to put 
an AOL icon on their desktop, they should not be forced to also put 
an MSN icon in the desktop. This is particularly galling when you 
consider that AOL offered $35 per subscribed and MS offered nothing.
    There's plenty more, but I am certain you have heard it before.
    Respectfully,
    Javier



MTC-00013595

From: Christina Mehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    The proposed settlement in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case is 
fundamentally flawed. Nowhere is Microsoft's monopoly power checked, 
nor are they required to pay for the benefits of their anti-trust 
violations.
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to voice my objection to the 
proposed final settlement, which doesn't prevent Microsoft from 
repeating its anti-competitive behavior.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25804]]

    Christina Lynn Mehl
    1255 Cortez Dr. #1
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    (650)969-1566



MTC-00013596

From: Andrew Apel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am opposed to the current settlement with Microsoft, as I do 
not believe they should be able to profit from any past (and 
apparently numerous) actions that violated the antitrust laws and/or 
guidelines.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Apel
    155 Jamestown Lane,
    Bolingbrook, IL 60440
    Tel# 630/783-8733



MTC-00013597

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:22pm
Subject: Court action not severe enough
    In short, I recommend that the current settlement of the 
microsoft case be removed and more stringent penalities applied to 
Microsoft. They have used their monopolistic power to stifle 
competition and crush upstart competitors. I'd ask the justice dept 
to follow the remaining states in DEMANDING a more equitable 
solution and I personally beleive a break up of the software maker 
is still a viable solution.



MTC-00013598

From: i a n c a r t w r i g h t
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    To whom it may concern,
    As a professional Designer/Web developer, the stranglehold 
Microsoft has on the tech industry is unjustifiable.
    It maintains that it innovates, while in reality it buys 
companies that are innovating and uses its sheer size to stamp out 
unwanted competition. This has been well documented so I need not 
revisit these claims.
    One example being its well known demand that Apple Computer use 
Microsoft Internet Explorer for Macintosh as the default browser on 
all new machines or it would cancel development of Microsoft Office 
for the Mac--a blow which would have meant almost certain death for 
one of the few true innovators in the industry. This probobly 
doesn't come close to touching on the goings on that aren't 
documented.
    They should not have the power to demand what canned OS or 
software feature set does or does not run on PC manufacturers 
machines.
    I think they have stifled innovation and set the industry years 
behind where it could be--all at our expense.
    Regards,
    Ian Cartwright
    M u l t i m e d i a A r t i s t
    [email protected]
    Gotham Images
    333 2nd Street, NW
    Hickory, NC 28601
    vox: 828.327.8099
    fax: 828.327.0189



MTC-00013599

From: Ray Lund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an educator I am greatly disappointed in the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Microsoft should not be given the opportunity 
of donating computers to schools which adds to the monopoly 
opportunities they already posses.
    Ray Lund
    Saco, Maine



MTC-00013600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:31pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I AM ONE WEST VIRGINIAN WHO THINKS DIFFERENT THAN THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF MY STATE. I THINK THAT THE SETTLEMENT ALREADY REACHED 
WITH THE OTHER STATES AND MICROSOFT IS ADAQUATE AND IT IS NOW TIME 
TO MOVE FOWARD. THIS IS ONE AMERICAN COMPANY THAT HAS BEEN 
SUCCESSFUL ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE AND WE AS AMERICANS SHOULD BE PROUD 
OF ITS ACHIEVEMENT.
    GEORGE MASON
    MORGANTOWN , WV



MTC-00013601

From: John M. Cantey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    SETTLE!



MTC-00013602

From: brooks williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:43pm
Subject: judge made correct decision
    The correct decision was made in disallowing microsoft to flood 
schools with their operating systems. If allowed it would have been 
a brilliant way to further an already massive monopoly. Microsoft 
doesn't even make computers. They enforce the way most people use 
computers. This is not the American way. I hope the courts and the 
government realize this. In the U.S. we take pride in having 
choices. I love being able to choose amongst an array of deodorant, 
furniture, or cereal. And, if I don't have a choice I'd rather the 
government have control over it. Imagine how much money we could 
budget if microsoft were a government entity.
    thanks.
    brooks williams
    PS: and there were a few non microsoft computers that weren't 
affected by Y2K (which cost taxpayers a lot of money). More 
brilliant minds = more choices = more ideas = more solutions.



MTC-00013603

From: Mike Geertsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen I encourage the Department of Justice to 
settle this matter quickly with Microsoft. Please do not undergo 
further litigation. It is more important now than ever that the 
economy is sound and strong and a settlement with Microsoft with 
help that happen. Further litigation--when a fair settlement is 
pending- is not necessary and may weaken the economy further.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Linda Langkow



MTC-00013604

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    You may not have read that Microsoft took an 8 cent per share 
charge for legal expenses and you may not care but 1,000,000 
stockholder households do and so do tens of millions of other 
Microsoft customers who won't gain a damn thing by prolonging a 
settlement of this matter that has dragged on since 1995.
    You are not saving consumers from anything from my own informal 
survey. And from my past work with Microsoft customers, by and 
large, they don't seem to care about what you are except for a few 
people who complain about everything in their life being unfair.
    I urge you to spend taxpayer money where it will achieve justice 
in matters where is more clearly some offense. (How are you dividing 
your time on the Enron case? Have you ever looked into the practices 
that catapulted Walmart to its near monopoly status?)
    If anything more should be done it should involve retrying this 
matter from scratch to address the judicial misconduct of Judge 
Jackson. But all such activities are counterproductive for EVERYONE 
in this country.
    And finally, in order to achieve uniform justice, I trust that 
your department will monitor donations of large industry leading 
companies to schools. We have heard from the courts how such 
activity constitutes unfair competition so let's make sure that 
companies with similar market positions as Microsoft don't help our 
school system as well. Let's work to preserve those companies that 
customers no long prefer by natural choice.
    Sincerely and respectfully,
    Raymond Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00013605

From: Wayne Schlueter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    I wish to express my opinion that any settlement reached with 
Microsoft NOT include any provisions that would increase their 
already obscene monopoly position. Specifically, I mean, NOT 
allowing them to ``donate'' software or hardware to ANYONE as part 
of the settlement. To me, that would be almost exactly the same as 
the tobacco companies giving away cigarettes at sporting

[[Page 25805]]

events. It is NOT a form of punishment, it is a form of ADVERTISING!
    My personal opinion is that the company should be broken into 
two parts, one that makes only operating systems, and one that only 
makes other software. In other words, I agree with the original 
judgment handed down by Judge Jackson. I see no other effective way 
to insure that the monopolistic and illegal activities of the 
company can be curtailed. Please do not let the power of this giant 
corporation push you to a position that you would not tolerate from 
an equally guilty defendant with less sway with people in high 
places.
    Yours sincerely,
    Wayne schlueter
    10952 Lariat Ln
    Dewey, AZ 86327
    [email protected]



MTC-00013606

From: Lois Cowan Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:53pm
Subject: Settlement
    This case has continued for years and it is hard to understand 
all that is involved. I would think our good government has many 
more items to handle at this time.
    Now the government is acting like a mom and dad who let their 
children make decisions and the children think they should make some 
demands in their decisions; i.e. its like the government cannot make 
up its mind either.
    I wonder how much money has been spent on this case-- how much 
will anyone gain? What has happened to free enterprise? Has anyone 
given thought to how this case has affected Microsoft stock and when 
Microsoft stock goes down so goes other tech stocks. Yet they 
survive and bounce back--they do not quit working to improve their 
business.
    I am a retired secretary and I applaud Microsoft for making 
personal computers user friendly and today I applaud them again for 
stating their intentions to do all possible to improve internet 
security.
    I ask you as a senior citizen to think hard before you carry 
this case further.
    Thank you in advance for consideration to ending this drawn-out 
case--if you want to, you can continue to find wrong anywhere you 
want to look.
    Lois Cowan Walker



MTC-00013607

From: apryor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  7:56pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    I HATE Monopoly and Microsoft. Do not collect the $200 when you 
pass go. And NO you cannot be the thimble, that is my peice, I 
called it. I know you are one of those bankers that likes to smuggle 
the 5 hunnies. So that is why we must stop all forms of Monopolies 
whether Milton Bradley or Bill Gates!!
    Microsoft is bad because they like to create monpolies and 
dominate the ``free'' world trade. They might as well be commies. 
This is a form of terrorism. It must be stopped immediately. PFJ 
really shouldn't be passed because if it does that means Bill will 
have a monopoly. Basically he owns Boardwalk and Park Place with 2 
huge hotels on it. Not to mention he controls all railroads. He 
needs to share or be forced to share. Don't do it, don't pass PFJ! 
Please!?!?! thank you judge, charge it 100%. We need you.
    drew
    CC:microsoftcomments@ doj.ca.gov@inetgw,dkleinkn@ yahoo.



MTC-00013608

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:02pm
Subject: Mocrosoft Settlement
    It's about time the anti-capitalists in Washington got off the 
backs of the people making this country what it is, a country in 
which most intelligent people applaud those who work their tails off 
to create jobs. But there are supposedly intelligent people who 
decry the individuals who create jobs in this country. As usual the 
settlement resulted in the lawyers pocketing the dough. When will 
the politicians in Washington get it through their heads to put the 
brakes on the trial lawyers in this country? Enough is enough.



MTC-00013609

From: Gary Gable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:03pm
Subject: Settlement
    I believe that the settlement agreement expands Microsofts 
monopolistic posture. The education market which is the focus of the 
agreement is one that Microsoft currently has a small percentage. 
The agreement does not establish a method that will discourage 
Microsoft into the future. Their business unit will not have been 
altered to promote a equal playing field and a competitive 
environment. I feel that Microsoft should be held fully accountable 
for their monopolistic actions.
    Gary Gable
    11210 West Monte Vista Rd.
    Avondale, AZ 85323



MTC-00013610

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:05pm
Subject: After reading all the data I could find on usdoj.gov on the 
Microsoft
    After reading all the data I could find on usdoj.gov on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case, I've come to a personal conclusion that 
Microsoft is still trying to turn this entire case into a positive 
experience for themselves. Think of the recently shot-down idea of 
giving free Windows to schools. Sure it would cost Microsoft about 3 
cents per CD to give the schools Windoze, but those schools would 
then have to buy more software from Microsoft and would eventually 
have to upgrade to a higher Windoze operating system.
    As you can probably see from my email address, I am a mac user. 
I am a very proud and extreme Mac user at that, so bear with me if 
this seems biased. If Microsoft were forced to simply pay the 
schools vast amounts of money, I think it would make everyone happy 
but Microsoft. The amount of money would have to be well over a 
billion dollars to be more than a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. 
Now the biased part. I still believe that Microsoft should be split 
up, not just into 2 companies, but into at least a dozen small 
companies. Windows development company, office and other 
productivity software company, games company, small hardware 
company, XBox company, etc. My experience with all of Microsoft's 
hardware and software with the exception of Office v.X for Mac OS X 
has been thorougly negative. Microsoft's tactics are clearly to make 
their own life better, even now that they are under investigation. 
Microsoft needs to be punished and punished *hard*
    Sincerely,
    Brook Willard, age 18



MTC-00013611

From: G Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft will never agree to any ``settlement'' 
that is justified per their proven illegal and unethical acts. The 
proposed ``punishment'' (punishment is the word that is frequently 
omitted for political correctness) put forth by the nine states is 
much more generous to Microsoft than it should be based on the 
evidence presented against Microsoft. I believe that those who feel 
the ``settlement'' agreed to by Microsoft is fair (or necessary) are 
intellectually dishonest.
    Gary Young



MTC-00013612

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Folks,
    If Microsoft is going to be punished it should be through them 
providing x amount of dollars with which the education sector can 
use as it pleases. Allow MS to provide products will be letting them 
off easy. The real cost of software is quite low and I'm sure that 
if the settlement is $10 M they will use the S.R.P. their products 
to calculate how much they need to provide.
    Another thought is that it would be nice for the settlement to 
result in something that doesn't support the high tech industry. 
Like paying the salaries of librarians in the inner city, or buying 
new books, a coat of paint or a new building for a school.
    Mark Malone
    Project Director, Burntsand Inc.
    Voice: +1 (408) 271-0205
    Fax: +1 (408) 271-0230



MTC-00013613

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
183 Notchwoods Drive
Bowling Springs, South Carolina 29316
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This lawsuit is entirely baseless! I fail to see the stability 
in a government who on the

[[Page 25806]]

one side, endorses free enterprise, while on the other, punishes 
those who excel in their industry. This is how I view the treatment 
that Microsoft has had to endure over the past three years. This is 
truly unfair. Microsoft should not be blamed for being a leader in 
their industry and yet, their efforts to innovate, improve the 
economy, provide affordable and user-friendly software, have all 
been rewarded with friction on both the state and federal level.
    I realize that the federal government has recently reached a 
settlement with Microsoft and that the opposition now is mostly at 
the state level. I am therefore writing to express my opinion and to 
ask that you continue to do all you can to bring this case to a 
close. Microsoft has truly been cooperative in this entire matter 
and have opened up their infrastructure-so to speak--in order to 
accommodate their competitors. They have agreed to uniform pricing, 
and disclosure of internal interfaces and protocols. Microsoft seems 
to be satisfied with the settlement as is evidenced by their 
compliance. Please make every effort to relay this compliance to the 
remaining opposing states.
    Sincerely,
    Aubrey Pointer
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00013614

From: Richard Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi--
    Having read through the proposed settlement for the case, namely 
a consent decree, I must say that this 'punishment' for Microsoft 
(Microsoft having been found guilty) i not entirely appropriate. The 
essence of this decree would be Microsoft promising not to do it 
ever again, and allowing their work to be monitored, to a certain 
extent. However, this same punishment was meted out previously to 
Microsoft several years ago--and yet, the consent decree imposed 
upon them did nothing to discourage them from continuing in their 
ways just as before. Indeed, despite the consent decree, they still 
had another case for a similar matter brought against them, and they 
were found guilty! One can see from this that it is quite likely 
that Microsoft simply ignored the previous consent decree, and would 
quite likely do exactly the same thing all over again.
    Also consider that, given the effectiveness of consent decrees 
in relation to Microsoft in the past, this consent degree would have 
little impact--almost certainly meaning that another case would be 
brought up against Microsoft in a few years. And we'd start the 
circle all over again, wasting time, and tax-payers money. Simply 
put: a strong punishment now, showing that the Department of Justice 
is not to be trifled with, would prevent further court cases, as 
well as further infringements by Microsoft.
    A consent decree has not worked in the past, and by all 
likelihood, will not work in the future with this particular 
company. A better solution to Microsoft's infringements must be 
found.
    Thanks,
    Richard



MTC-00013615

From: Sid and Anita Pevear
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to know whose idea this was, because I don1t see 
anything in this settlement that does anything to discourage 
Microsoft from doing business the same way. I believe it even gives 
them a free conduit in to a market that they have always had a 
problem cracking i.e.; education. I personally think they should be 
made to set up a trust with the cash and let the schools decide for 
themselves what equipment they would like to by. I can already see 
Mr. Gates licking his lips at the prospect of having a clean shot at 
a captive audience for his shoddy products. I think this 800 pound 
gorilla needs a big cage.



MTC-00013616

From: Michael J. Hutchinson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please move forward with the proposed settlement and stop 
wasting time and money.
    M. J. Hutchinson



MTC-00013617

From: Clyde Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a comment on the Microsoft antitrust settlement. As a 
citizen of the United States, I wish to express my deep disapproval 
of the recent proposed Microsoft settlement (which allowed Microsoft 
to dump their products on the educational market). In fact, I 
believe that any settlement that involves Microsoft products to be 
only a boon to the company, and not a punishment in any sense. If 
Microsoft is to atone for its unfair practices, it must move to 
level the software development landscape.
    Microsoft should be required to publish detailed 
interoperability documentation for existing versions of its Windows 
operating systems. No Microsoft program should be allowed to take 
advantage of undocumented operating system features, and no 
Microsoft application program should be developed with insider 
resources unavailable to other corporations. If Microsoft is 
unwilling to propose reasonable plans that ensure and verify this 
separation, then Microsoft operating system development and 
application development must be split into separate corporations.
    Microsoft should also be required to publish (and adhere to) 
complete specifications of all defacto standard document formats 
(Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Access, etc.). Many of these formats were 
published in previous times, but are no longer published now that 
the competition has been dispensed with. As these formats have 
become the standard format for their respective applications, no 
competition can be expected to arise without access to accurate 
documentation of their construction.
    Microsoft also must be required to maintain these documented 
interfaces as public standards. Microsoft must retain ownership of 
the standards, but must not be allowed to change the standards 
gratuitously (to drive the competition out of business again). Thus 
either an industry committee must be involved in mking changes, or 
at the very least, changes must be approved and published some 
months before products implementing those standards are released to 
the public by any corporation.
    Thank you,
    Clyde Rogers



MTC-00013618

From: Kent W. Backstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that what has been suggested by the U.S. Government in 
this case is completely inappropriate. Microsoft is a ``serial'' 
monopolist and the suggested remedy in completely inadequate.



MTC-00013619

From: David Simpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft settlement comments,
    I don't believe that the proposed settlement goes far enough to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its monopolistic practices.
    By virtue of the fact that Microsft already has an illegally-
acquired monopolistic share of the computer software marketplace, it 
will be very difficult for any competetors to gain market share. 
Therefore I believe that the only remedy to the court case which 
will serve to promote competition and redress the offenses which 
Microsoft has committed is the breakup of the company. If Microsoft 
was broken up into at least two parts: an operating system supplier, 
and an applications software developer, competition would be 
restored. As a provision of this type of settlement, Microsoft 
should be ordered to develop its operating system for other hardware 
platforms (Sun--using Sparc processors, and Apple-- using PowerPC 
processors--hardware as a minimum). The applications software 
division should be ordered to re-develop all of its applications for 
use under Sun's Solaris, SGI's IRIX, Linux, and Apple's MacOSX 
operating systems.
    David Simpson



MTC-00013620

From: Michael Scoblete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    Market economics is a beneficial system because it produces a 
variety of product solutions and allows the consumer to choose. 
Monopolies function to the opposite. Microsoft certainly has a 
monopoly, actively seeks more control of its own market, and related 
services to reduce choice. It is not using advertising and 
competitive products as a tool of market share aquisition, it is 
seeking to use product coersion.
    Consider current necessity of Windows operating system on 
storebought hardware, or Internet explorer in windows, would we

[[Page 25807]]

permit a doctor such coersion ``You can take this blood pressure 
medication, but the prescription comes with prozac and a laxative, 
in the same pill.'' Or microsofts goal of making its browser only 
search for, list and go to microsoft sites. Could A phone company 
demand that users not call people with other long distance plans? Or 
not call 911 because it is not a part of their package?
    Companies and service providers are allowed reasonable control 
over their product and services. Microsofts actions are not 
reasonable, not good for the consumer, the market, or our country. 
(is dependance on a bug-infested, inefficient and self-obsoleting 
system a good thing?).
    Thank you for your time
    -Michael Scoblete



MTC-00013621

From: William Kuhle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello:
    Microsoft treated the PC hardware platform as if it owned it, 
and thus hurt consumers, software developers, PC OEMs, OS 
competitors, and the industry in general. Microsoft is an 
unrepentant monopolist. I believe that the best settlement would be:
    Microsoft is broken up into separate Systems, Applications, and 
Internet Explorer companies.
    Barring a breakup of Microsoft, penalties should include:
    (1) Microsoft must standardize and publicize the entire set of 
Windows APIs;
    (2) Microsoft must standardize and publicize the file formats of 
its Office applications;
    (3) Microsoft must allow the ``bootloader'' on PC hardware to be 
controlled by the hardware manufacturers. (The Windows license 
agreement with PC OEMs specifies that any machine which includes a 
Microsoft operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft 
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a computer that 
offers to boot into Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot 
into Linux or other PC-based OS. The hardware vendor does not get to 
choose which OSes to install on the machines they sell ? Microsoft 
does.)
    See: http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1115/byt20010824s0001/ for 
more information regarding the bootloader issue.
    I believe that monetary penalties will be inadequate. The 
current remedies proposed by the DOJ and some the the states are 
inadequate.
    Sincerely,
    William Kuhle
    655 Goodpasture Island Road, Apt 170
    Eugene, OR 97401-1533
    541-684-0019



MTC-00013622

From: TrapMac2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As you have invited comments, I will speak as an average citizen 
who uses technology. I have earned my living using personal 
computers for almost fifteen years. During that time, I have rarely 
seen any Microsoft product demonstrate genuine innovation or 
creative imagination. Instead, they seem motivated only by a desire 
to control and dominate the entire digital world. Their use of 
anticompetitive practices and strongarm tactics have won them great 
wealth and power while providing the computer users of the world 
with mediocrity and lack of choice.
    The computer has revolutionized the world we live in and made 
tremendous contributions to our society and economy. The decision 
the Court will render in this care will greatly influence the 
development of technology and civilization over the next century. As 
only one small working-class person, I have no hope of standing 
against the world's richest corporation. All of society is composed 
of small, insignificant specks like me and our only defense against 
an amoral giant such as Microsoft is you.
    In a criminal case, much emphasis is placed on the defendant's 
remorse over his/her crime. Microsoft demonstrates absolutely no 
remorse, continues to deny that a crime even took place, and 
displays no respect for the Court or its proceedings. They provided 
doctored evidence during trial (the videotape), contradictory and 
misleading testimony, and as a ``remedy'' they actually proposed an 
action that would extend their monopoly even further in the area of 
education. What criminal defendant could display such utter lack of 
remorse and not receive the harshest possible sentence?
    What I ask from this Court is simple: Whatever settlement terms 
are arranged, there must be an absolute and completely Independent 
Oversight Agency who can monitor and, if need be, neutralize future 
anti-competitive actions by Microsoft. If Microsoft is allowed even 
the smallest loophole, they will find a way to slither through it. 
And all the world, tiny computing nobodies like me, will suffer for 
it. I beg you to defend us against that dire fate.
    Sociopath is the word we use to describe a human being without a 
conscience but what word shall we employ for a corporation without a 
conscience? Microsoft CANNOT be trusted and will immediately start 
seeking ways to evade and undermine any remedies that the Court will 
devise. I urge you to keep that one thought foremost during your 
deliberations.
    Thank You
    Tim Bowen
    26078 Crocker Road
    Columbia Station, Ohio 44028
    330-483-3832
    [email protected]



MTC-00013623

From: Don MacGlashan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:14pm
Subject: comments on Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft's settlement proposal is the most clever self-serving 
plan I think I have ever heard presented in public. After having 
seeded the education system (the one market they don't own yet) with 
their software (by giving hardware requiring their software), they 
would probably realize at least a 10 fold return on investment 
during the next 10-15 years. Refusal of this plan is imperative if a 
nominally competitive market place is to remain. If the government 
likes the idea that Microsoft donate equipment to schools, then 
require that they donate their competitors'' equipment. In this 
case, since they own the operating system used by most computers, 
then there are few choices (donating Intel equipment that could use 
other operating systems is not viable because it is clear that most 
users would opt to use Microsoft's Windows on this equipment). The 
obvious choices would be Sun equipment or Apple equipment. Given the 
significant anti-competitive practices of Microsoft over the years, 
it seems reasonable that their retribution should include 
strengthening their competitors position in at least one segment of 
society. While the education market is of significant size, it is 
not a particular threat to Microsoft itself since their primary 
market is business, an enormous market which they would retain. An 
alternative might be to help school districts higher up the chain by 
donating large equipment (servers, mainframes) that also do not have 
any possibility of benefiting Microsoft (they also wish to enter the 
server/mainframe market with their operating system).
    If the government is not interested directly helping Sun, Apple 
or other manufacturers, then the settlement should assiduously 
attempt to rectify Microsoft's anti-competitive practices by only 
considering alternatives that clearly do not benefit, even 
indirectly, Microsoft in any way. This may seem obvious at this 
point but each proposal needs to be scrutinized by other parties (as 
was done in this first proposal).
    Donald MacGlashan
    Professor of Medicine
    Johns Hopkins University



MTC-00013624

From: Anthony Charles Chacon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Sir or Madame,
    As far as I am concerned, Microsoft is guilty of all charges. By 
allowing them to settle it is sending the message to other countries 
and our enemies (including Osama Bin Laden) that the United States 
Government cares more for the financial well being of large, wealthy 
profitable incorporation then the hard working little guys that they 
step all over in their quest to rule the marketplace. Microsoft 
should be held accountable for their monopoly in a court of law and 
not in a business deal. Such an act would be no more then a slap on 
the wrist. A settlement would also give the impression that the 
court's decision that Microsoft is a monopoly was a waste of money 
and all those tax dollars proving the case were a waste. If you 
spent all that time and effort to prove, then why not convict and 
sentence? I am not saying ``put them out of business'', but to treat 
them as any monopoly in the past.
    Anthony Charles Chacon



MTC-00013625

From: Travis McGee

[[Page 25808]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft
    PLEASE LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE.
    DO NOT WASTE MY TAX DOLLARS
    I WILL NOT LET YOU GET ELEECTED AGAIN IF YOU HARM OUR PRIDE AND 
JOY COMPANY
    VIRGINIA GODDARD
    BOSTON



MTC-00013626

From: Barbara Areitio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:30pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    LEAVE MICROSCOFT ALONE!!



MTC-00013627

From: Richard Ferree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs,
    I think MS is too big and has too much control of the industry.
    It should be broken up or severely restrained.
    A minor fine will not prohibit its continuance.
    R. Ferree



MTC-00013628

From: Sonja Reinhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft has gone on for to long 
and has been a waste of taxpayers dollars. The original reason for 
the lawsuits I thought was to protect consumer rights. But instead, 
under the terms of the settlement it seems that only competitors of 
Microsoft have made out. The terms state that Microsoft will not be 
able to retaliate against computer makers or software developers who 
develop or promote software that competes with anything in its 
Windows operating system. The terms also force Microsoft to disclose 
numerous technological secrets to its competitors. These concessions 
only give competition a chance to gain an edge on Microsoft ? an 
edge they could not accomplish without lobbying politicians and 
lawmakers.
    This case has gone on for too long and it is time to settle. It 
is in everyone's interests to end this matter so that the IT sector 
can rebound from its dormant state.
    Thank you and I ask your help in finalizing the agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Sonja Reinhardt
    5810 E. Hohokam Trail
    Tucson AZ 85750



MTC-00013629

From: William P. Crumpacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The company`s offer to give a billion dollars worth of equipment 
to schools in America is an offer NOT to be rejected out of hand. If 
Steve Jobs fears that will somehow give Microsoft an inside track to 
the entity that his company has long held a monopoly, then require 
Gates & Co. to buy half the computers from Jobs` Co.



MTC-00013630

From: Joho
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:42pm
Subject: Antitrust
    Clearly, Microsoft has displayed MOST unreasonable actions about 
monopolizing the OS market. Please place harsh const4rictions on 
them by breaking them into many groups, b ut please, sont give them 
more market share by allowing them to purchase computers and 
software for the education market.



MTC-00013631

From: Christopher Choin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:55pm
    Microsoft needs to pay either cash or buy apple computers for 
the schools. $1 Billion in Cash to all low income schools to use at 
their disgression. . . .except purchases of any Microsoft Products 
or any products using Microsoft Software of any sorts. . . Unless it 
is a brand new Apple computer system. That is a true punishment that 
would make them think twice about trying to undermine other computer 
companies again!
    Think about this and know it is truth. . . . .Microsoft is out 
to take over and control the entire computer, software and digital 
lifestyle of all people world wide.
    Chris Choin



MTC-00013632

From: John Boatwright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is John Boatwright and I am a resident of Tega Cay, 
South Carolina. I am writing to congratulate the Justice Department 
and Microsoft on reaching a settlement of the antitrust litigation, 
and to express my support for the settlement and an end to the court 
proceedings. I believe that the settlement reached adequately 
addresses the primary complaints raised by Microsoft's competitors. 
Microsoft has agreed to open its Windows applications to competition 
both by allowing the removal of Microsoft based programs from the 
Windows system as well as by allowing promotion of competitors'' 
software within the Windows system. I also support the non-
retaliation provisions to which Microsoft has agreed in its dealings 
with software competitors. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to 
express my opinion. Please move forward with the settlement as 
quickly as possible.
    Sincerely,
    John M. Boatwright, III ps.
    I have attached a PDF of my signed letter



MTC-00013633

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2980 West Buno Road
Milford, Michigan 48380
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. As a supporter of Microsoft and an American 
taxpayer, I would like this case to be concluded.
    Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft has agreed to 
changes that make antitrust precedent. The company has agreed to 
document and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces 
that are internal to Windows operating systems products. This means 
that Microsoft has more or less opened its inventions for the 
competition to use as a platform to launch their own competing 
products. This is most apparent in Microsoft's decision to grant 
computer makers and software engineers broad new rights to configure 
Windows in order to promote non-Microsoft products that compete with 
programs included within Windows.
    The settlement is extensive in the sense that it lays out 
methods of preventing and handling future dilemmas. A technical 
oversight committee will ensure that Microsoft complies with the 
terms and conditions of the settlement, and competitors will be 
allowed to sue Microsoft directly if they feel they've been treated 
unfairly. It appears to me that the issues that brought about the 
case have been addressed. This case has dragged on for three years, 
and may drag on more if those that will never rest until Microsoft 
is broken up, have their way. I just want to remind you of the 
devastation that would ensue if standardization and operability were 
lost, not to mention the stalling of innovation. I hope that you 
will judge this case by its merits, and not the depths of lobbyists? 
pockets.
    Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Balsley



MTC-00013634

From: Dave Godbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As posted on your website, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm#submit regarding the DOJ/Microsoft settlement, I would 
like to submit this comment.
    I do not believe the current settlement between DOJ and 
Microsoft is in the best interests of the consumer or the country. I 
strongly believe the original decision to break up the company is 
the only sensible way to level the playing field between Microsoft 
and its non-operating system competitors. Note that its competition 
in the operating system market is non-existent. Microsoft is a 
monopoly, it has abused its position as a monopoly, and it will 
continue to do so under the current agreement.
    Even under the cloud of the current litigation, Microsoft has 
continue to bundle

[[Page 25809]]

components in the newly released XP operating system, namely a media 
player, instant messaging, and others. This is to the detriment of 
Real and other media player vendors, and to the number of instant 
messaging vendors. Clearly these practices are anti-competitive, 
because when Microsoft makes these component available ``free'' in 
the operating system, it is really shifting the costs of delivering 
those products to the operating system. Consumers tend not to pay 
for additional components when they already have a ``free'' one, 
therefore putting companies like Netscape and Real Networks in 
jeapordy because they cannot realize substantial revenues from their 
products, nor the operating system.
    1) Microsoft should be allowed to bundle the products. However, 
consumers must be required to pay for them, and Microsoft must be 
required to provide an operating system FREE of these products at 
lower cost should consumers (via the OEMs) request them. Microsoft 
must stop hiding the cost of these products (like Internet Explorer) 
in the operating system so that other companies can realize revenues 
and better compete with Microsoft.
    2) Microsoft must give the same level of access to the operating 
system to other vendors that it gives to its own applications 
developers. Why do Microsoft Office and other products open so 
quickly? Because some of their components reside in the operating 
system and are therefore ``preloaded.'' This makes the Microsoft 
products look better than its competitors products. Other features 
available to Microsoft applications that are not easily available to 
other vendors products also enhance this perception.
    How do we better level the playing field? Structure some sort of 
breakup of Microsoft. It is the only reasonable and enforceable 
approach.
    Thank you,
    David Godbey, Ph.D.



MTC-00013636

From: Melissa Jenks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:03pm
Subject:
    Microsoft should not be allowed inroads to the education market 
that Microsoft should not be allowed inroads to the education market 
that Apple has concentrated on for years. If they are allowed to 
give PC's to schools with Windows software, this would further erode 
Apple's position in the education market.
    Melissa Jenks
    1325 18th Street, NW #1008
    Washington, DC 20036
    H: 202-223-3729
    W:202-321-3132



MTC-00013637

From: owltree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I use Microsoft products. A lot of them. I use the software, the 
operating systems, everything. There is nothing better on the 
market, which is why I was very irritated with the antitrust case 
brought against Microsoft. Antitrust laws are brought because of a 
business'' monopolistic practices. There were no such practices with 
Microsoft. I choose Microsoft because they work. Period. Microsoft's 
competitors whine about Microsoft, then make a better mousetrap. Mr. 
Bill Gates worked long and hard to make his company what it is 
today. He did so by providing consumers what they needed: 
quality,affordable products. Now he is being persecuted for it.
    Now, a settlement has finally been reached. And I want to urge 
you to give your approval to this agreement. We don't need to 
nitpick over what should be the final decision. Why else are there 
courts? If we continue to revisit these decisions, it will only 
undermine the legitimacy of this and future decisions.
    And from what I understand, Microsoft has more than done its 
share to end this lawsuit. Microsoft has agreed to a technical 
committee to monitor future adherence. It will even share code or 
programming that Windows uses to communicate with other programs.
    It is time to go forward. Give your support to this agreement
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Keator
    PS) A copy of this letter is being sent to you in the US mail.



MTC-00013638

From: Alan Hirschhorn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1 Dogwood Road
Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Recently, I noted that there is a 60-day period for public 
opinion regarding the Microsoft antitrust case. This case has been 
active for more than three years. The proposed settlement was 
arrived at as a result of extensive negotiations with a court-
appointed mediator. The terms of settlement are fair and equitable. 
I am in favor of finalizing the settlement at the earliest possible 
date.
    Microsoft has agreed to allow competitors access to its 
documentation, protocol, and programs so that they may attach their 
non-Microsoft products to Windows without any retaliation from 
Microsoft. Microsoft has also agreed to have a neutral technical 
committee monitor their compliance with all provisions of the 
settlement.
    I appreciate the time and effort you've given this case.
    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Alan D. Hirschhorn



MTC-00013639

From: Tim Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement and Remedies
    Any remedy in the Microsoft judgment must restore competition to 
the marketplace. Microsoft's monopoly position and persistent 
anticompetitive behavior were issues that brought the case up in the 
first place, and normal market forces of competition would have 
prevented these problems. Restoring competition will balance the 
market and allow end users the choice that we value so highly in a 
free and open market.
    An effective remedy must employ rigorous measures to correct the 
market imbalance and prevent future anticompetitive behavior from 
Microsoft. Their established patterns of violating consent decrees 
and continually testing how far they can step outside of the Court's 
orders indicate that Microsoft will continue to employ 
anticompetitive business practices for as long as they are capable. 
Past behavior and published internal documents from Microsoft 
support the suspicion that this corporation will continue to stifle 
competition to unlawfully maintain its monopoly position.
    The most effective measure to restore competition to the 
marketplace is to break up Microsoft. This remedy proved highly 
effective in the cases of Standard Oil, the Bell System, and 
countless others. History has proved out that neither the petroleum 
nor the telecommunications business sectors suffered ill effect from 
breaking up Standard Oil and the Bell System. The facts show that 
both sectors flourished substantially after breaking up monopolies 
into smaller business units and restoring competition to these 
markets.
    As the Bell System was broken up into ``Baby Bell'' telephone 
operating companies, and Standard Oil was broken up into smaller, 
competing petroleum companies, Microsoft should be broken up into an 
operating systems company, an applications software company, and an 
Internet services and communications company. This follows the 
successful pattern employed with the Bell System, where AT&T 
retained long distance telephone service, and local service was 
provided by a group of competing, local Bell Operating Companies, 
the ``Baby Bells.''
    To clarify matters, applications software is defined as computer 
software intended for specific tasks: word processing, database 
processing, graphic editing and rendering, audio/video/multimedia 
rendering, enterprise resource control and planning, local and wide 
area network administration, communication clients, Web browsers, 
utility functions such as encryption and data file management, and 
numerous other, similar functions. These applications all require an 
operating system to function.
    An operating system is defined as the computer infrastructure 
required for the basic operation of the computer hardware and 
supporting applications software: data input/output, data storage, 
and other functions to allow hardware to communicate. Operating 
systems carry out general tasks necessary to support the computer 
system and make it useful, leaving specific tasks to applications 
software that can be added and removed by

[[Page 25810]]

the end user without degrading the operating system.
    Internet services and communication are remote location services 
accessed via the Internet or similar telecommunications means. These 
services include, but are not limited to, information, 
telecommunications via text (e-mail), voice, and/or video images, 
access to the World Wide Web, business transactions (e-business, e-
trade), and similar wide area communications. Breaking up Microsoft 
in such a fashion puts the company on a more equal footing with 
competing firms in the computer software and Internet communications 
service industries. Breaking the operating system monopoly away from 
the applications software business unit will prevent further 
occurrences of unlawful and anticompetitive software bundling, an 
issue that brought this dispute into court in the first place. 
Making all the participants in the applications software market 
equal will foster competition and innovation, as shown by the 
telecommunications boom that occurred after the Bell System breakup. 
The Bell System precedent illustrates that end users will not suffer 
any loss from breaking up Microsoft. In fact, the end users will 
likely be the biggest beneficiaries as competition encourages 
innovation, reduced costs, and improved quality. This was the case 
with the Bell System breakup. An adequate and competent monopoly was 
broken up to pave the way for substantial innovation and excellence 
in that business sector. End users currently pay less for more and 
better telecommunications service in a competitive market. The same 
benefit will come from breaking up Microsoft.
    In the event that the Court chooses not to break up Microsoft, 
the following remedies are suggested as alternative means to achieve 
a restoration of competition in the computer software and data 
communications market:
    Regulate Microsoft and the MS-Windows operating systems as a 
public utility, much the same as electric and water utilities. This 
will require additional government infrastructure to administer. 
Such regulation would have to remain in effect as long as Microsoft 
holds a monopoly. The political overhead of establishing and 
operating a regulatory agency may be unwieldy, and this will likely 
require action from Congress to establish and fund such regulatory'' 
activity. Prohibit exclusivity clauses in operating system software 
licenses. Microsoft's practice of requiring hardware vendors to 
exclude other operating systems as a condition for purchasing MS-
Windows only perpetuates Microsoft's monopoly position. End users 
should have a choice of operating system software, to include double 
and multiple boot options to use more than one operating system on 
the same computer. A healthy and competitive marketplace allows end 
users to select which operating system(s) they want, rather than 
having vendors dictate to customers what they will use. Consumers 
must be free to decline pre-loaded copies of the MS-Windows 
operating systems and return unused operating system software for a 
refund. Computer hardware manufacturers and distributors must be 
free to load any operating system(s) that they and their paying 
customers choose into computer hardware. Current business practice 
has the operating system tied to the hardware by a monopoly 
(Microsoft), leaving purchasers obliged to pay for software that 
they may not want and cannot return for credit. Microsoft has abused 
its monopoly position to bar potential competitors from the market, 
using business practices not too far removed from those of the 
Standard Oil monopoly in its day.
    Another alternative or adjunct to breaking up Microsoft into 
three companies would be to make the MS-Windows family of operating 
systems public domain, and Microsoft would have to agree to leave 
the proprietary operating system market in order to prevent re-
establishing a monopoly. This action would effectively dissolve the 
monopoly that has been at the heart of this case. This action must 
be voluntary on Microsoft's part, because it could be construed as a 
taking by the government, rather than the remedy in a lawsuit. 
Microsoft's violation of antitrust law must not be parlayed into an 
occasion to collect taxpayer dollars, should Microsoft give up 
proprietary ownership of the MS-Windows family of operating systems. 
A public domain Windows operating system can be standardized and 
administered by nonprofit industrial standards governing 
organizations, much the same way as World Wide Web domain names and 
related administrative Internet infrastructure is maintained by the 
user community. Such a move would place the Windows operating 
systems in a position analogous to industry standards that serve the 
general public as a whole.
    The overriding concern is that whatever remedy the Court imposes 
on the Microsoft case, it must restore competition to the market. 
The best solutions are those that allow natural market forces to 
prevail, rather than increased governmental oversight and regulation 
that diverts taxpayer dollars from more pressing issues. Like 
Standard Oil, Microsoft has persistently and continually employed 
unlawful practices to maintain a monopoly, and only the most 
rigorous measures will be effective at correcting the situation.
    William T. Wright
    Tampa, Florida



MTC-00013640

From: (042) Tom Gleason (042)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm really amazed at how easy our new government figures want to 
let off Microsoft so easily! This is rediculous. . . Microsoft's 
been a domineering bully for so long now, with Gates always 
staunchly supporting their selfish attitudes. . . C'mon you guys, be 
fair for a change! Maybe Enron and those guys bulldozed California, 
but don't let Microsoft bulldoze our nation. I see republicans as 
too cozy with big business.
    Tom Gleason



MTC-00013641

From: jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft--Stop going so easy on these guys CC: 
[email protected]@inetgw 1/17/02:
    I'm saddened by Microsofts continued anti-competitive behavior, 
and the governments inability to put them in their place. As 
additional proof that they plan to comtinue to restrict inovation 
and competition, they have acquired several patents from SGI. These 
technologies are important to many fields (3-D imaging, modeling, 
high-end graphics) and untill now have been fairly open (OpenGL). 
Under Microsoft control, companies like Apple, Adobe, Macromedia, 
Sony, and other developers will be forced to adopt perverted closed 
versions of these technologies. True inovation and competition will 
be even more restricted than before. Microsoft has proven time and 
time again that they don't care about security or inovation--For the 
consumers sake or the govenments. Microsoft does a great song and 
dance about being inovaters and their concern for security of 
computer systems, but when push comes to shove Micosoft is only 
interested in control.
    Take these guys down.
    Thanks.
    Jeff



MTC-00013643

From: zarra hermann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am ashamed at the DoJ even considered the last proposal of 
Microsoft as an actual settlment worth mentioning outside of 
Redmond's boardroom fantasies.
    You have them in a hard spot, not the other way around, correct? 
It's your big chance to do something that will change the course of 
history not perpetuate the status quo. The last time we had this 
chance the US settled for a $5,000 slap on the wrist to the 
automakers for effectively putting the railroad out of business in 
this country.
    Mircosoft wants a settlement, so make them one you think they 
need to refuse, and you may have your answer. make them bleed, but 
if you worry over public relations on this and they know it, you've 
essentially decided not to have a backbone. Make them bleed. It will 
benefit future diversity and perhaps deter them from doing it again 
so obviously. When else are you going to get this chance to actually 
DO something to send a message with the world waiting?
    Zarra Hermann
    Zarra



MTC-00013644

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the settlement.
    Basically, Microsoft is not being punished, and is allowed to 
dump their product on the school market the last hold out of the 
competition (Apple) The competing software should be purchased with 
the money (GNULinux, Apple) and installed in schools so that new 
computer users develop knowledge of the competing products. 
Microosft should be enjoined from anti-competitive practices, such 
as making their

[[Page 25811]]

OS's work with LILO or other multi-boot loaders.
    I agree that Microsoft, should be broken up, because their 
continued refusal to apologize for their wrong-doing indicates that 
their attitude has not changed.
    Regards,
    Erich Friesen



MTC-00013645

From: Stan Doherty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I work in the computer industry.
    This ``settlement'' is bad for:
    * free enterprise
    * technical innovation
    * justice
    * decency
    The only good outcome is the realization that if I ever earned 
billions of dollars in the computer business, I would know that I 
could bribe my way through the court system
    Stan



MTC-00013646

From: Drew Moll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:47pm
Subject: Comments
    Hi--
    I wanted to give my comments on the proposed remedy for 
Microsoft vs. DOJ.
    I am a computer consultant, and I make my living using Microsoft 
software. I believe Microsoft has done nothing that other companies 
such as Oracle or IBM wouldn't have done if they could. That said, I 
do believe Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems, 
and just as importantly, office software. Specifically, there is no 
competition to Microsoft office.
    This situation is bad for the economy since Microsoft can 
continue to add ``tures'' to either Office or one of its operating 
systems, forcing smaller companies and businesses such as mine to go 
bankrupt. I believe in the not-to-distant future Microsoft will 
start integrating a database into its operating system, and this 
will have an adverse affect on Oracle corporation, the #2 software 
company in the United States.
    To remedy this situation, I believe there are two possible 
courses. The first is to force Microsoft to spin off their Operating 
System development and sales into a separate company. The second is 
to force Microsoft to spin off Microsoft Office development and 
sales into a separate company. Either of these two remedies will 
have the desired effect of creating more competition, and a more 
stable economy since it requires either monopoly to compete more 
evenly with other software.
    Thank you,
    Drew Moll
    Fairfax, VA USA



MTC-00013647

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello I am writing an opinion on the Microsoft settlement.
    First and foremost I believe that any punishment short of 
dividing the company is not harsh enough. Second the proposal for 
them to donate software to schools is yet another thinly veiled 
attempt to increase their presence in the world. Giving away their 
own product for free is something that has absolutely no effect on 
their monopoly status and will only do more to increase it. Apple 
computer is right to object to this proposal. Being that Apple has 
relatively zero market share in the corporate world, education is 
their biggest non consumer market. Their small market share could be 
diminished much more for Microsoft to simply give away their own 
stuff. This would eliminate the competition between the two thus 
bringing up the Anti-competitive practices Microsoft has used to 
date to become the monster it is.
    How the company was allowed to get to this point is beyond me. 
Imagine if GM was the car maker that supplied 95% of the planets 
cars. A settlement now is irrelevant. They should have been dealt 
with a decade ago. However I do have an idea short of splitting up 
the company. Hows this? Microsoft must pay a sum to schools who 
haven't opted for the Windows platform for future purchases. They 
should also donate money to business and schools who opt out of 
renewing a Windows license for a competitors platform (Linux, Unix, 
Macintosh OS). In addition they should be allowed to donate money to 
low income schools and communities to let them use the money as they 
see fit.
    Microsoft must allow OEM computer manufacturers to configure OS 
preferences AS THEY WISH, free of hidden penalties and injunctions. 
OEM's should be allowed to put a Quicktime or REAL player icon on 
the desktop and not a Media Player icon if that is what they want to 
do. Microsoft must face continual sanctions for their past actions 
(much like a terrorist state) limiting their market reach. 
Especially in the area of forcing companies to upgrade to newer 
product licenses even when they don't want to upgrade or have no 
reason to other than for Microsoft to keep their stronghold.
    Microsoft must keep producing OFFICE for the Apple Macintosh 
platform even if Apple doesn't want to make Internet Explorer the 
default browser. A personal gripe: Microsoft must make their 
programs easier to delete off a computers hard drive, Macintosh or 
PC.
    These are just a few suggestions. If only one is helpful than 
that is at least a start. Anyhow SOMETHING EFFECTIVE must be done.
    Thank You.



MTC-00013648

From: John (038) Gail
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft software user, I send this message to urge you to 
settle the litigation brought against the company with all due 
dispatch. I believe the proposed settlement is fair, had been found 
such by many of the States who were involved. It is time to get this 
litigation behind us and let this segment of our economy operate in 
freedom once again (subject of course to the rules as have been 
redefined). Please let this litigation be ended in the way that has 
been deemed appropriate by many of the litigants; let Microsoft get 
back to business!
    Thank you, John K. Williams



MTC-00013649

From: Gordon Giles
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gordon Giles
Box 127
Seldovia, AK 99663
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gordon E Giles



MTC-00013650

From: John Lucas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Lucas
3007 quenton place
waynesboro, VA 22980
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a 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 25812]]

companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 R. Lucas



MTC-00013651

From: Jason Lerman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jason Lerman
686 10th St.
Brooklyn, NY 11215
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Lerman



MTC-00013652

From: John Baker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Baker
7708 Arlington Dr.
Nampa, ID 83687
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Baker



MTC-00013653

From: J. Lowry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
See Attached file
Jerry Lowry
1789 100th Avenue Harris, IA 51345-7537
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft, US DOJ
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    My name is Jerry Lowry, of Harris, Iowa. I want to let you know 
that I am pleased with the Justice Department's settlement of the 
Microsoft litigation, and I hope that you implement if in the very 
near future.
    It has been difficult for the average person to fully understand 
all the accusations and counter-accusations hurled by the parties in 
this litigation. As I understand it, the most frequent and 
compelling complaint dealt with the inability of computer owners to 
utilize non-Microsoft software with Windows operating systems on 
their computers. Microsoft has agreed to allow such competition. 
Microsoft has also offered to have its compliance with the terms of 
the settlement agreement by a Technical Committee to avoid further 
problems and further litigation. I believe the company has gone the 
extra mile to resolve this case, and I do not see the need for it to 
drag on and on.
    I sincerely hope that you see the wisdom of this agreement 
(after all, the DOJ wrote it), and allowing its implementation. It's 
time for the government to get out, and let the market decide who 
succeeds in the industry.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address this matter.
    JERRY A. LOWRY
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Lowry



MTC-00013654

From: Dale Montross
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale Montross
2324 Serenity Lane
Heath, TX 75032
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Montross



MTC-00013655

From: Nancy Burwell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nancy Burwell
25 Cromwell Drive
Morristown, NJ 07960
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of 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 25813]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Burwell



MTC-00013656

From: Noel Harris
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Noel Harris
Rt.3, Box55
Cuthbert, Ga 31740
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
Noel Harris



MTC-00013657

From: Aleta Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsof Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to thank you for reading my opinion on the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    At the moment Microsoft has a clear monopoly over many aspects 
of the ddesktop computer industry and is spreading to others. An 
example of this monopoly would be how when you buy a computer from 
Dell or Compaq, Internet Explorer is pre-installed on the system. I 
personally dislike Microsoft's browser and naturally chose to use 
Netscape instead. Upon having Netscape installed I had several error 
messages appear when I use the internet. If I chose ``close'' my 
computer would lock up forcing me to restart my computer. After 
consulting my friend he informed me that having both of the browsers 
on the computer would cause conflicts and the only way to remove the 
errors was to uninstall one of the browsers. Since I perfered 
Netscape I proceeded to uninstall Internet Explorer which was quiet 
a difficult task because it is tied into so many things in the 
Windows OS.
    Once Internet Explorer was removed I was confronted with two 
more problems. The first one was that I would have problems when I 
open folders, which appear to be browed using Internet Explorer, 
(Note the ``Back'' and ``Forward'' buttons on the top of the 
window). This was quite a problem since I have many files on my 
computer and I now could not access them. The second problem was 
with Microsoft's ``Critical Updates'' which are patches which 
usually fix some problem, usually with the OS, (They sure have a lot 
of updates). These updates can only be accessed using Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer. Having uninstalled the program from my computer I 
now could not access them. This left me with a serious problem which 
could only be fixed by using there browser.
    Another problem which deserves some attention, is Window's 
compatibility with Apple's QuickTime. Many videos and forms of media 
are in Quicktime format. On newer versions of the Windows OS the 
Quicktime Player (which is not insatlled with the OS) causes 
conflicts which leads to crashes and a whole bunch of problems. 
Since many people still wanted to view Quicktime formated files, 
they would call up Microsoft and ask how to fix it. Microsoft would 
say that yes it was a conflict with the Windows OS and that the only 
solution was to remove Quicktime. Rather then update their OS 
through there many ``Critical Updates'' they forced Apple to make a 
new version of Quicktime if it wanted to run on Windows computers 
(which take up most of the market).
    These are my reasons I believe Microsoft has a clear and growing 
control of the market. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Watson



MTC-00013658

From: james bolin
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james bolin
7897 n kitchen rd
mooresville, in 46158-6551
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 e bolin



MTC-00013659

From: Nola Frick
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nola Frick
112 Honeysuckle Lane
Lake Placid, FL 33852-9236
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nola Frick

[[Page 25814]]



MTC-00013660

From: Randy Hall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Randy Hall
2800 Rosewood Blvd
McKinney, TX 75071
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 and Candy Hall



MTC-00013661

From: Colleen Kellerman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Colleen Kellerman
8217 77th Avenue N.E.
Marysville, WA 98270
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Colleen Kellerman



MTC-00013662

From: Robert Montgomery
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  2:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Montgomery
185 Valley View Drive
Lenoir City, TN 37772 ]
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Montgomery



MTC-00013663

From: Jeanne Goldbach
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  4:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeanne Goldbach
56 Stony Cor. Circle
Avon, CT 06001
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Jeanne Goldbach



MTC-00013664

From: John Sproat
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Sproat
1419 E. Manasota Beach Rd.
Englewood, FL 34223-6341
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 25815]]

    John R. Sproat, Jr.



MTC-00013665

From: Frank Maybaum
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Maybaum
9726 S.W. 190th Terrace Road
Dunnellon, Fl 34432-4227
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 & Sandra Maybaum



MTC-00013666

From: Gretchen Nichols
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gretchen Nichols
930 Orrvillewood
Wildwood, MO 63005
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Gretchen Nichols



MTC-00013667

From: Robert Hitt
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hitt
11027 W. Old Hickory Ct.
Benton, IL 62812
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Hitt



MTC-00013668

From: James R. Bennett
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James R. Bennett
20817 Fairpark Drive
Fairview Park, OH 44126-2008
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 R. Bennett



MTC-00013669

From: Ronald McTaggart
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald McTaggart
3536 Bobwhite Ct.
Melbourne, FL 32904
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25816]]

    Sincerely,
    Ronald McTaggart



MTC-00013670

From: Frank Stoppa
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Stoppa
8044 Swamp Flower Dr. E.
Jacksonville, Fl 32244-6160
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J. Stoppa



MTC-00013671

From: K enneth Burns
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  3:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Burns
6106 Waters Edge Rd
Midlothian, Va 23112
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 S Burns



MTC-00013672

From: Arthur Stafford
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Stafford
16909 Gunboat Circle
Maurepas, LA 70449
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur Stafford



MTC-00013673

From: Robert Goorey Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  7:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Goorey Jr.
6723 Wannamaker Lane
charlotte, nc 28226-8513
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 F. Goorey Jr.



MTC-00013674

From: Charley Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charley Johnson
1389 Harrison Point Trail
Fernandina Beach, FL 32034
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-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 25817]]

    Sincerely,
    Charley and June Johnson



MTC-00013675

From: Robert Vickers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement currently under consideration is 
unacceptable. Microsoft should be dealt with much more harshly. 
Their business practices have been shameful. Please reject the 
current settlement offer.
    Thank you,
    Robert Vickers
    Sebring, FL



MTC-00013676

From: Linda Houston
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Linda Houston
611 Lopax Rd. T-3
Harrisburg , PA 17112
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views, and even 
though the above is a form letter, it reflects my views exactly.
    Sincerely,
    Linda Patton Houston



MTC-00013677

From: zbyter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:25pm
Subject: Settlment
    I think that the settlement is not enough. If Microsoft is not 
severely punished for their actions I believe that this will only 
encourage others to risk the same fate. The lack of accountability 
that this settlement provides only reinforces the declining morals 
that are currently eroding many aspects of our country.
    Thank you.
    Julio Cardona
    1402 Hoyt St.
    Lakewood, Colorado 80215



MTC-00013679

From: Christopher S Keady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:26pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Microsoft might have been found guilty, but I hope that the 
justice dept understands that Microsoft destroyed an entire industry 
with their practices, and they expect the justice dept will do 
nothing except slap them on the wrist for it. Thousands of people 
out of work, ideas stolen, and tactics that would land any normal 
american in jail. Why not have them just payback what they have 
done? Rebuild netscape and leave the browser market? Thou splitting 
them up would be the smartest thing, unless you want to go threw 
this trial again, because Microsoft will pirate and bully again, its 
their history.



MTC-00013680

From: Catherine O'Riley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement seems more like a reward to Microsoft 
than any type of penalty. Three years ago, when I tried to buy an 
Intel based computer without Windows pre-installed, no one would 
sell me one. Every place I tried said they were not allowed to. One 
place did offer to remove Windows for me, but they still wanted me 
to pay for it. I consider that direct harm to me.
    At the minimum, Microsoft should be required to make ALL their 
APIs public information. They even offered to, before the DOJ 
decided to do their best to drop the case. And the oversight group 
should not be dominated by Microsoft-- they should be allowed only a 
token representative. Anything less will perpetuate their monopoly, 
and they have already shown evidence that they intend to become even 
more ``aggressive'' than before.
    Neil Ratzlaff
    393 Staten Avenue
    Oakland, CA 94610



MTC-00013681

From: Ron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft
    First off let me say I think MS is getting off way to easy 
period. You allow the Giant to continue doing business as usual 
while they play the wounded lamb. But enough of my personal rants. 
If MS is going to be giving anything to the community the last thing 
it should be is products of the monopoly. A large 10 figure donation 
in cash to the proposed areas would be more inline. Let the scholl 
admins decide what and when they will purchase with the ``MONEY''. 
Its just a shame the DOJ and more so the courts had to be so 
spineless in this case. Oh well at least maybe some schools will get 
something out of it because the public at large is getting the usual 
shaft and someplace at the bottom is the gold that Microsoft will 
steal anyways.
    Ron Richardson



MTC-00013683

From: grouchymike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Weak. This will not stop Microsoft from it's predatory 
practices. As a citizen who has been affected by Microsoft's illegal 
M.O. I request protection and the availability of freedom of choice.
    Mike Davison
    714-389-2721



MTC-00013684

From: Brian Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not understand why you are letting microsoft off so easy. 
Netscape is dead with no innovation in the last few years since aol 
``purchased them''. (And why would aol want a browser, they are 
competing against browsers. A Company with 88% market share is a 
monopoly. They crush opponents with lawyers, vaporware. The original 
software code of windows was stolen wholesale from apple, and from 
this apple extorted them to support the apple platform with office. 
They create risk for all entrepreneurs in that they have no qualms 
about stealing their ideas, but they do not keep running with it, 
they drop it once the entrepreneur gives up. The innovations they 
have destroyed have made america stagnate.
    Our laws say monopolies are bad and i feel the law is right 
about this. I believe in business men being able to compete but a 
natural dominance is 70% market share. Above that and you can gouge 
the consumer. $250+ per upgrade, excuse me, this is a software 
program. Who can afford Office?. . . Or should i say who can afford 
not to afford it. What happened to wordPerfect. They use the fact 
that hardware is now as expensive as a toaster to hide their huge 
markup. PC's should be will beneath 500 for a complete system at 
this point.
    I feel an extremely pro business establishment is turning a 
blind eye to their monopoly. Their products are poorly written, 
buggy, prone to hackers and viruses that are extremely easy to 
write. This causes extreme dangers to american businesses that are 
dependant on these machines. Competition has been lacking for quite 
a while and the only group that can restore it is the government.
    Yes there are some good points in what they have done, but we 
would be much better off with a true remedy to a monopoly, the 
appointment of a governing body to guard the public, a general 
breakup of the same, or extreme restrictions that cause rapid loss 
of market share. The entire settlement is a joke, very political, 
and will have a serious effect on the prosperity of our country.
    brian t meyer
    [email protected]
    general manager and techie



MTC-00013685

From: Mark and Sheri Hillis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:59pm

[[Page 25818]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in support of Microsoft and urge you to proceed 
with the antitrust settlement proposed. We need to end this process 
and allow Microsoft to direct their energy to what they do best. I 
believe it is good for the industry and good for the American 
people.
    Sincerely,
    Sheri Hillis



MTC-00013686

From: Gerda Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/17/02  11:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This legal action should not have happened. I am in complete 
agreement and lend my full support to any action that Microsoft 
brings forth. I appreciate the integration of all Microsoft 
Products. This frivolous legal action has seriously infringed on 
initiative and private enterprise. It has gone way passed 
``reasonable'' and it is overdue for closure without punishing Bill 
Gates for being an intelligent, resourceful entrepreneur in a 
Capitalistic society.
    -- [email protected]
    -- EarthLink: It's your Intemet.



MTC-00013687

From: Matt Craighead
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am an MIT student in the Class of 2002 studying computer 
science. I have worked in the computer software industry since 1998, 
both at a small game development firm in Minnesota and more recently 
as an OpenGL driver developer at NVIDIA Corporation, based out of 
California. I have had extensive experience developing software on 
Windows and on numerous other platforms, and I have closely followed 
the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit since at least 1996. Early in the 
lawsuit, you probably could find few tougher critics of Microsoft 
than me. I despised the company, I despised its software, and I 
despised its business practices. Indeed, I recall writing an email 
to the DOJ urging that Microsoft be broken up back then.
    However, I have since come to realize that I was wrong.
    Indeed, I, like many other Microsoft critics, was rather 
hypocritical in voicing my opinions. I wasted no time in attacking 
Windows and other Microsoft products, yet I didn't put my money 
where my mouth was. I could have downloaded and ran Linux. I could 
have used alternatives to Microsoft Office. But did I No, I didn't. 
-In fact, I tried Linux for a short while and quickly came back to 
Windows, having discovered that Linux was a rather difficult 
operating system to install, configure, and use, even for a 
computer-savvy person such as myself. The more Microsoft products I 
tried, the more happy I discovered I was with them. Most people are 
familiar with just a few, like Windows and Office. However, for my 
own software development, I started using Microsoft Visual C++ 
(MSVC) 5.0 after I received a free copy of it from Microsoft for 
participating in a computer programming competition. After the 
initial learning, curve, I quickly discovered that I greatly 
preferred MSVC5 to the previous software I had used, Borland C++ 
4.5.
    It was easier to use and its compiler ran faster and generated 
better code; and it was much better for writing Windows 
applications. I recall one application that I recompiled using the 
Microsoft compiler. To my great surprise, the application ran twice 
as fast with no effort on my part. I also began to reinvestigate 
many of my political views when I took an economics course in high 
school. I frequently argued with my economics teacher about all 
sorts of issues, and, to my surprise, I discovered that he was 
frequently right and I was frequently wrong. I discovered, for 
example, that pollution trading credits were a better solution for 
all parties involved than were laws that set strict upper limits on 
emissions. I also began to learn more about the stock market and 
about business in general. My study of economics has continued 
though college, both inside and outside the classroom.
    I also discovered firsthand, on my first job, that, in the words 
of George Washington, ``like fire, [government] is a dangerous 
servant and a fearful master.'' The surprise started when I 
discovered that taxes are not paid with a check to the Treasury on 
the following April 15; instead, they're deducted from every single 
paycheck in advance. I also learned about state laws that, for 
example, prohibited me from working overtime because of my age, even 
if I, using my own best judgment as a competent individual, thought 
I wanted to do so. And where in 1996 I had supported Ralph Nader as 
a candidate for president, by the 1998 election I was cheering for 
the Republicans instead.
    How does all this relate to Microsoft?
    The essential issue in the Microsoft case is: are businesses 
free to make their own decisions about how to design their products 
and how to profit off of them, or shall government make those 
decisions?
    For example, Microsoft wishes to put certain features in 
Windows; other companies object, saying it would be an unlawful use 
of monopoly power under the Sherman Antitrust Act. I will not 
address the legal issue of whether Microsoft's actions did or did 
not meet the standard of the Sherman act; I am not qualified to do 
so. However, what I do believe I can pass judgment on is the issue 
of whether it is right or wrong for Microsoft to do what it has 
done. Microsoft is a corporation, and the purpose of a corporation 
is to make money; not to serve the public, not to help consumers, 
not to improve our society. No, in fact, the legal obligation of 
every corporation is to maximize its own shareholders'' wealth, and 
indeed it should be. The corporation is simply a pooling of 
resources (those of investors), and those investors have not joined 
together out of charity, nor out of goodwill to fellow men; their 
goal is the pursuit of their own happiness--one of the fundamental 
ideals of our nation, expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
    Their pursuit of wealth (and, by proxy, of their happiness) does 
not harm others. In fact, in their desire to earn as much money as 
possible is far more likely to benefit others than to hurt them. For 
if Microsoft can make a better product, it can sell more of it. 
Microsoft benefits, because it earns more money. Consumers benefit, 
because their product is better.
    Only a few individuals do not like this picture--those whose own 
businesses are threatened by Microsoft's actions. Indeed, look at 
the companies attacking Microsoft--Sun, Oracle, etc.--and you will 
see that they are, by and large, Microsoft's competitors.
    If Microsoft truly drove these companies out of business, would 
that be a bad thing? No, of course not! For all that would mean is 
that Microsoft had produced a better product or sold it at a lower 
price -and so consumers would have benefited. Of course, many of the 
companies in the lawsuit are in no risk of going out of business; 
they are merely feeling the competitive pressures of another 
successful company. This is entirely healthy.
    When you look at the actions these companies wish the Department 
of Justice to take, you can see that they serve to do little other 
than cripple Microsoft. They want Microsoft to ``de-bundle'' 
features--in other words, to put fewer features in. They want 
Microsoft to not engage in exclusive licensing--yet this is a 
fundamental element of Microsoft's freedom of contract (and surely 
these companies don't want their own exclusive licenses revoked!). 
Ultimately, they want a standard set that if Microsoft wants to put 
a feature in Windows or pick a price for its products, their 
competitors and the government must approve of it--a system of crass 
protectionism.
    Fundamentally, Microsoft has harmed no one. Everyone who engages 
in a business transaction with Microsoft does so voluntarily--by 
purchasing a product, applying for employment, or signing a 
contract. Anyone who dislikes Microsoft or Microsoft products or any 
other aspect of the company can choose to not do so. What would its 
competitors do? They would restrain people who do wish to engage in 
such voluntary transactions from making them! So who is involved in 
the real restraint of trade here? Surely not Microsoft. Instead, we 
ought to look to those who wish to slap restrictions on Microsoft. I 
am not saying we should prosecute them under antitrust laws; I am 
simply pointing this out, illustrating the absurdity of the 
situation, and the absurdity of the antitrust laws themselves, which 
claim to promote ``competition'' by destroying it.
    In fact, I believe that the current Microsoft settlement, if 
anything, is too harsh on the company, not too lenient. I believe 
Microsoft is innocent of any wrongdoing, and that they should not 
receive any penalty whatsoever. Yet, there are those who wish to 
slap yet greater penalties on the company, or even force it to break 
up. This is highly misguided. The real threat to competition in the 
computer industry is not the actions of Microsoft, but instead 
George Washington's ``fearful master''--the intervention of the 
government in a healthy industry where no crime has been committed.
    In any case, I must beseech you that, if you do put penalties on 
Microsoft, you minimize them. I don't believe that companies have an 
obligation to serve consumers, but at least

[[Page 25819]]

consider the people who benefit from Microsoft's market position, 
such as myself.
    Consider Microsoft stockholders, whose $376.2 billion in wealth 
is in danger. (For the record, I hold no Microsoft stock.)
    Consider the millions who happily use Microsoft software.
    Consider all the software developers, such as myself, who are 
grateful that Microsoft has made Windows into a de facto standard 
for computer software, rather than having to code for numerous 
operating systems.
    Consider all the money Microsoft pumps into research and 
development every year.
    Consider how Microsoft has been instrumental in building the 
personal computer industry nearly from scratch.
    Consider the role model Bill Gates serves as to millions of 
Americans -the epitome of the American Dream.
    So, please, fight the demands of the 9 state Attorneys General 
to increase penalties for this innocent company, and instead put 
your efforts into tracking down the real criminals, violent and 
nonviolent, of our nation.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Craighead, MIT Class of 2002 President, MIT Objectivist 
Club
    http://web.mit.edu/objectivism/www/



MTC-00013688

From: dizzynoise(a)mac.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'll put it plain and simple:
    Microsoft is a monopolistic company that can NOT be trusted. 
They don't seem to be learning either. Their tendencies have become 
so BLATANT, and so outright, that they seem to be bragging about it.
    Example 1: PocketPC
    ``Choose the power of Windows. Choose the PocketPC.'' This 
advertising campaign is ubiquitous. Microsoft is promoting their 
PDA's by using slogans like ``Use the software you know & trust'' 
and ``[program] is like a trusted friend.'' Even though the Palm OS 
handhelds (the hands-down direct victim of this campaign) offer full 
compatibility and in some cases, better compatibility (WordSmith or 
DocsToGo for example) , Microsoft is creating the deceptive image 
that Palm OS handhelds are not much more than a Memo Pad, and that 
because the OS on the computer at home is Windows, that the OS on 
the PDA should be ``Windows.'' Although, unlike Netscape, this isn't 
a case where Microsoft is beating their technology into the 
operating system, they ARE using words to do a very similar action.
    Microsoft is also doing a bit of deceptive advertising along 
with the PocketPC campaign. Palm OS handhelds such as the Sony CLIE 
PEG-N710C & N760C can play Mp3 files, and play converted movie files 
with stereo sound. Palm OS handhelds such as the HandEra 330, as 
well as a great deal of the CLIE's also have high-resolution 
screens, something Microsoft does not even make mention of. Instead, 
they compare their PocketPC to a significantly lower-priced Palm 
model, assuming that they all are the same. Yet the PalmOS models 
that DO compete with the PocketPC in price terms are not listed.
    This is simply an example, but it illustrates the point that 
Microsoft is using deceptive advertising to promote their products.
    Example 2: Windows Media Player
    This proprietary technology is starting to clamp down on 
competitive media. Although RealNetworks is holding its own, if 
nothing is done, Windows Media will head down the same route as 
Internet Explorer. Unlike the file format Quicktime, Windows Media 
files are ``locked'' in the format, and cannot be decoded or 
exported into other formats. The problem arises when web sites 
encode media. Windows Media support for the Mac OS is absolutely 
terrible. . .  to say the least. (then again, Realplayer isn't doing 
so well, either.) Not all WMP files are viewable, and even then some 
bizarre things happen when trying to access media off of the 
internet. Although one might argue that Apple's Quicktime favors the 
Mac platform, at least Windows users are able to view ALL QT conent, 
not just some of it. And as mentioned earlier, if trouble arouses 
when sending a home movie to a friend on a PC, the file format is 
never ``locked'' , so it can be exported to another format. 
Microsoft is doing a lousy job of multiple OS support, and although 
I would never expect the Mac version to be as nice as the Windows 
version, the shoddiness of the product tells me that their chief 
concern with WMP, is keeping users locked into Microsoft's programs. 
I should also mention, that Microsoft builds in a ``Windows Media'' 
button into the IE browser, as you may be well aware of.
    Example 3: MSN & Passport
    Microsoft, as usual with their first attempts, hasn't exactly 
thwarted AOL with their MSN service. But they're now starting to 
move in for the kill (as with Palm and RealNetworks.)
    ``There are some things you grow out of, AOL is one of them.'' 
Ads like this run like crazy. And I know if I start up IE on a 
Windows PC, the default page will be MSN.com. When a family member 
of mine purchased his new Sony Laptop, it came with an MSN internet 
access disk. Even Apple recommends Earthlink as their ISP, but a big 
difference with Apple and Microsoft, is that when I install OSX, I 
don't get 30 reminders telling me I should sign up for an iTools 
account. Microsoft's .net is Microsoft's goal to dominate the net, 
in my opinion. Microsoft already controls the browser, OS, Office, 
and several other categories (not to mention the areas they're 
currently trying to control) , now they want to control people's 
personal information.
    What needs to be done:
    Any proposal needs to benefit a neglected group: start-up 
companies, and standards not controlled by Microsoft. Had Microsoft 
never set out to milk one more market by crushing companies that 
pioneered it, people would most likely be using Netscape, Quicktime, 
WordPerfect / Clarisworks , and companies like Palm would not be 
hanging by the skin of their teeth, and Netscape would be thriving.
    Already facing challenge is the controversial but now ``icial'' 
format of Digital Music: Mp3. Microsoft isn't even supporting it 
(very much) with Windows XP, in favor of. . . . . . . their own, 
proprietary format. Although it sounds like ``big brother'' , 
Microsoft should be BANNED from bundling ANYTHING with their OS, or 
even remotely ``requiring'' certain things be bundled due to 
``proprietary formats'' developed by Microsoft. (i.e. Windows Media) 
The PC makers (Compaq, HP, Dell, Sony, etc.) should solely decide as 
to what goes with it. Also, the source code of Windows needs to be 
openly available for developers. Netscape can't even integrate their 
browser, because Microsoft won't let them! Along with that, more 
work needs to be done to let other OS's be more compatible with 
Windows. Java is a great example of this.
    One final note. As if Microsoft could be more outright about 
their desire to become a monopoly, I should mention the ``lock-out'' 
of Msn.com people of other browsers experienced (Opera, Netscape, 
etc.) , claiming that the browser's didn't support the page due to 
the lack of support for certain types of code. Microsoft later 
admitted that Opera's page rendering ability had nothing to do with 
it. -----
    [email protected]



MTC-00013689

From: Ben Wagner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:21am
Subject: Please prosecute
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Microsoft is guilty of breaking the law; therefore, they should 
be punished. I am tired of being forced to pay for an overpriced, 
substandard product.
    Thank you,
    Ben Wagner



MTC-00013690

From: John McClain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:34am
Subject: Comments Re:United States v Microsoft Settelment.
    I agree with the judge's ruling rejecting Microsoft's proposed 
settelment. Their proposal would have allowed them to monopolize the 
education market in direct opposition to the laws against 
monopolistic practices. My hat's off to the wise judge and the 
astute Justice Department lawyers!



MTC-00013691

From: Jim Holmlund
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is nowhere near strong enough! Microsoft has to 
be stopped from using its competitive advantage to take over new 
markets! Have you looked at the Passport part of their .Net 
initiative? They now want to own everyone's online identity, 
passwords, credit card numbers, . . .  And, they have a good chance 
of succeeding because their monopoly on PC operating systems and 
browsers allows them to lure people into their .Net clutches. Also, 
have you noticed the incredible security holes that constantly pop 
up in their operating systems (eg, XP) and applications? These will 
allow malicious hackers and terrorists to bring down any website, or 
even the whole internet by taking over the PCs of unsuspecting users

[[Page 25820]]

and using them as zombies to do the DOS attacks. uSoft can only get 
away with such callous disregard for the people of our country, and 
even our country itself because of their monopoly on desktop 
machines. Please get serious about this and punish Microsoft in 
accordance to the serverity of their past and continuing crimes! 
Thank you. James Holmlund 73 Erstwild Ct. Palo Alto, Ca. 94303.



MTC-00013692

From: Gail and Fred Follmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In January 2000, we bought a new HP Office Jet printer. We were 
running Windows 98 and everything seemed to be okay. Some time 
passed and we, my wife and I, noticed that if we were on the 
internet and wanted to print some information, our PC would hang up 
(do nothing) until the print operation completed.
    We called HP support and they sent us a new/updated print 
driver--but they were not certain this would fix our system hang 
problem. It didn't. HP told us to contact Microsoft as they, HP, 
felt we had some sort of synchronization problem between the print 
buffering and the 98 operating system. We called Microsoft, its now 
late April, and Microsoft tells us that Windows 98 is not the 
``currently supported'' environment--we need to be on 98 Second 
Edition for supported assistance, unless we're willing to pay for 
support on 98. I ask how much will the support cost? Answer, ``don't 
know, it depends on how long it will take to resolve the problem, 
but that a minimum would apply. It was pointed out that Window 98SE 
only cost $99.00 and fixes many 98 base problems, plus it adds 
functional support and performance. So we buy 98SE and install it, 
now I have the same system hang problem and several other problems, 
but at least they, Microsoft technical support will talk to us free 
of charge. It's now July, we have various system problems/hangs, 
even when not attached/connected to the internet. Microsoft tells me 
we need to download Maintenance level 1, as it fixes many problems. 
I download and apply Service Level 1 and still have the same printer 
hang problem, plus a more severe problem that the system 
periodically hangs for no reason--it doesn't matter what we were 
trying to do (use the mouse, keyboard, write a letter, search our 
data base, etc.). Finally in late September, Microsoft determines 
that I have incompatible levels of various modules within my system 
and I need to scrub everything and re-install Windows 98SE, then re-
apply the SE maintenance package and see what happens--but Windows 
ME is highly recommended--especially for the home user who wants 
enhanced multi-media and internet functions. I don't know, more $$. 
Anyway, re-installing my system and everything seems to work. The 
problem, I was told, was that when I was using Windows 98 and the 
accompanied Microsoft Internet Explorer, then applied the first 
maintenance package to base Windows 98, I should have UN-INSTALLED 
Internet Explorer, then applied the maintenance, then re-installed 
Internet Explorer. I told them, hey, IE came bundled with 98 when I 
bought it and I had no choice about its installation nor were there 
any instructions to un-install IE before installing the Windows 98 
maintenance package. My point, their bundling of IE with Windows98 
is what caused the problem of me having incompatible module levels--
after I applied the maintenance package. But because of the age of 
my system, I either had to pay for service or pay for an upgrade to 
98SE, which didn't solve my problem. I think Microsoft should have 
been willing to do what they call ``problem determination'' to 
determine what the initial problem was (their problem, my problem, 
or HP's problem) regardless of what Microsoft Windows product and 
product level I was running. Then once they knew the problem, fee or 
free resolution could be discussed. My point, they are the only 
``game'' in town and you either do it their way or you don't. One 
thing for sure, If I had been running Netscape instead of MSN IE I 
would not have had the problem (we know this because my printer 
worked fine when connected to my daughter's PC). I don't know if I 
would have been running Netscape if IE didn't come with my system, 
but have you ever tried to un-install IE from your system??
    Also I don't know if the above is what the anti-trust lawsuit is 
all about, but I think the whole issue of what's supported and for 
how long and what's the real problem should be determined before you 
tell an end-user customer, who's at your mercy, you have to pay for 
service.
    For what its worth, I'm now running ME because I upgraded to an 
Intel P-IV processor so I had to go to ME to get the function and 
performance. It's a circle that never ends. Pay me, pay me! Fred 
Follmer, 276 Fireside Ridge Dr. Dahlonega, Georgia, 30533. 
706.219.4835. PS: Here I am complaining, but I no longer have the 
documentation, HP or Microsoft problem and/or incident numbers, to 
support my grievance--but thanks for listening.



MTC-00013693

From: Kirk Mueller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that anything short of breaking Microsoft into two 
pieces as originally proposed is inadequate to prevent a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopolistic activities.
    Thank you,
    Kirk Mueller
    El Segundo, California



MTC-00013694

From: C (038) R Kerby
To: mailto:[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/18/02  12:46am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
    It is our belief that the duty of the Department of Justice in 
anti-trust actions such as the Microsoft case is to protect the 
interests of the consumer, not the competition which was not wise or 
aggressive enough to stay in the running.
    The consumer, we the people, were never hurt by Microsoft. We 
were only hurt by the actions taken against Microsoft by the 
Government, adding to the decline in the tech stocks, dominoing into 
the decline in the overall market and contributing to the existing 
recession.
    We believe that the settlement offered by Microsoft is fair and 
that it should be gratefully accepted, thereby preventing further 
damage to the consuming public and the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Charles R. Kerby
    Catherine M, Kerby



MTC-00013695

From: J. David Hester
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:55am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Why is a monopolist allowed to negotiate terms? I wonder if 
criminals w/o so much money would be given such ``equal protection 
under the law''? Quit coddling and start 1) dividing up the company, 
2) releasing the source code and 3) forcing Microsoft to compete 
fairly. Or are you too busy helping to protect the President's rear-
end from the Enron scandal to put any more effort into this?



MTC-00013696

From: Keith Beavers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Its hard to grind every ones axe. Please settle as soon as possible.
    Sincerely, K.B.



MTC-00013697

From: William Rivas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:06am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is imperative that the Department of Justice NOT accept 
Microsoft's proposed settlement. It is anti competitive and will 
only ensure Microsoft yet a greater control of the software world. 
Companies like Apple would be diluted even further by acceptance of 
the proposed settlement by allowing Microsoft to implement 1 billion 
dollars worth of computers to the poor schools. Apple will be hit 
hard by such a move.
    William Rivas
    [email protected]
    United We Stand



MTC-00013698

From: Michael Leamer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this case. After 
reading the Complaint, Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment, and the Competitive Impact Statement, I have a much better 
understanding of the DOJ's case against Microsoft. I feel that the 
proposed final judgment is a fair and equitable way to correct the 
past misdeeds of Microsoft, especially in their dealings with ISPs, 
computer manufacturers, and other software companies that must 
interface with the Microsoft Windows operating system. I am of

[[Page 25821]]

the firm opinion that the states that are against the proposed 
judgment but are pushing for more radical treatment of Microsoft, 
are acting in the interests of corporations or other special 
interests within each state's jurisdiction that wish to see nothing 
else but the imposing of restrictions so strict that their solution 
would in effect, be stifling and anticompetitive in nature. In this 
pursuit, I do not believe that these states have the interests of 
the public in mind.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment would remedy the practices 
that have brought Microsoft to this trial, while looking after 
public interests, without unduly restricting Microsoft from pursuing 
its legitimate, legal business.
    Again, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to express my 
opinions in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Leamer
    [email protected]



MTC-00013699

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The tactics used by Microsoft in the recent years, including the 
``browser wars'', were apprehensible at best. By using their 
dominance as sole provider to 95% of the world's Intel users. it 
assured itself the top position. It has also begun the same tactics 
with their .Net strategy, but that is another case. The settlement 
that Microsoft has proposed is even slimier than the original deeds 
that brought about the case. Microsoft, as expressed by Steve Jobs 
and Apple Computer, Inc. and others, is once again trying to put 
itself into a market where it does not already have control with 
their ``donated'' software. It is known, in fact, as the judge 
agreed, that the real cash value of the settlement is a fraction of 
what Microsoft is offering in its own product. How can it be 
possible for a business to be punished by allowing it to disseminate 
a new market? This must not be allowed, and my faith in the Federal 
Judicial system tells me that it won't be.
    Jefferson Campbell
    concerned U.S. Citizen



MTC-00013700

From: John Nakai
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:13am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust settlement comments
10085 South
Wyecliff Drive
Highlands Ranch, CO 80126
January 17, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
RE: Microsoft antitrust lawsuit
    Dear Renee,
    I believe that I recently heard on the radio that proposed 
settlement in the Federal government's Microsoft antitrust case 
(where Microsoft would donate $1 billion in computers and Microsoft 
software to the nation's poorest schools) had fallen through. If 
this is true, I applaud the collapse of this totally inadequate 
settlement agreement for the following reasons.
    First, here is a quote from a TheStreet.com article http://
thestreet.netscape.com/tech/software/10004818.html on West 
Virginia's new suit against Microsoft regarding the federal case. 
``Under that settlement, proposed last month, Microsoft would donate 
more than $1 billion in software and computer equipment to the 
nation's poorest schools. Critics have characterized the proposal as 
a ploy to increase Microsoft's share of the education-software 
market, one of the few areas within the software sector where it 
still faces significant competition, namely from old-time foe Apple 
Computer (AAPL:Nasdaq) . Proponents characterize it as a win-win 
situation that benefits underprivileged students.''
    I would like to ask the proponents of this settlement why they 
think Microsoft should be a winner for the monopolistic antitrust 
crimes they have committed. I don't think we should be rewarding 
individuals or corporations for criminal behavior.
    Had AT&T come to such an agreement in their federal antitrust 
case they would not have been broken up. Instead AT&T would have 
been able to stay a monopoly and would have agreed to providing free 
long distance to the customers of all its long distance competitors 
for just long enough to drive its competitors out of business. This 
settlement would be a windfall reward for Microsoft for criminal 
behavior, not a punishment. Microsoft's lawyers had found another 
shrewd way to devastate the competition of their product line in the 
nation's schools and weaseling out of this antitrust case at the 
same time.
    In the part of this settlement where Microsoft agrees to donate 
a billion dollars worth of computers to the nations schools, if 
Microsoft is allowed to make this donation using computers running 
Microsoft operating systems, or running Microsoft software, then it 
succeeds in the following.
    1. Microsoft displaces other vendor's hardware and software out 
of the schools. A prime target here is Apple Computer, who maintains 
a large market share of computers in schools because of their 
superior ease of use and graphics capabilities. Microsoft will also 
displace other operating systems such as Unix, Solaris, and Linux, 
and other application software such as Netscape, Corel, Applixware, 
Appleworks, Apache, etc. from the schools. As good as the other 
products are, they can't compete with free hardware and software. It 
may well put some of these competitors out of business by flooding 
the schools with free Microsoft products or computers dependent on 
Microsoft software to operate.
    2. Microsoft will force schools to have to buy software from 
Microsoft for future upgrades.
    3. Microsoft will make children come home to their parents 
saying they need Microsoft software and computers running Microsoft 
operating systems and software to do their homework.
    4. They will make themselves look like the good guys to schools, 
administrators, and children who will think Microsoft is coming 
bearing gifts, rather than buying themselves out of a criminal 
prosecution. A true public relations victory for the wolf in sheep's 
clothing.
    5. Microsoft does not have to make reparations to the victims of 
its criminal antitrust crimes and does not get broken up. Instead, 
Microsoft gets to further steal market share and customer base from 
it's competitor victims with money that should rightfully be paid to 
it's victims or the government as a fine.
    6. While Microsoft can say it donated $1 billion dollars worth 
of hardware and software, let's realize that Microsoft can produce 
software at pennies on the dollar of retail value, and can surely 
acquire new and refurbished hardware from PC vendors for pennies on 
the dollar through any number of sweetheart deals. The true cost to 
Microsoft of this settlement would probably be less than a third of 
the advertised $1 billion value.
    As a current user of Windows, Macintosh, Unix, and Linux, plus 
many others in the past, I can say with expert confidence that while 
Windows is an acceptable operating system, it still lacks the system 
stability, virus resistance, advanced features, open source 
software, and user empowerment of creativity offered by the other 
operating systems. This settlement could wield a death blow to Apple 
and possibly others by robbing their customer base. It not only 
keeps the abusive Microsoft monopoly intact, it strengthens it, 
leaving the computer consumer world stiffly under Microsoft's thumb.
    Microsoft truly needs to be broken at least into two separate 
companies to separate their operating system business from its 
application software business. The current structure gives Microsoft 
continuing opportunity to sabotage competing application software 
with ``incompatibility'' changes to it's operating system with each 
OS revision, and to provide other operating systems with slow, 
buggy, or otherwise dysfunctional or nonexistant versions of its 
application software. Its further expansion into internet services 
with msn.com, and its plans to deny msn.com web service to browsers 
other than its own Internet Explorer because other vendor's browsers 
are ``incompatible'' are further examples of Microsoft's plans to 
cut out competing vendor's products through the use of its monopoly 
powers.
    My opinion is:
    1. Microsoft should still be broken up.
    2. Microsoft should not be allowed to flood schools with free 
computers and software unless the computers are up-to-date 
Macintosh, Linux, Solaris, Unix, or other non-Windows computers. Any 
freely provided software should be that of current competitor 
software (AOL, Netscape, Kodak, FileMaker, Apple, Red Hat, Yellow 
Dog, ApplixWare, gnu, Sun, etc.) Only then will this settlement make 
any kind of reparation to Microsoft's victims and aid in 
discouraging and diminishing Microsoft's monopolistic abuse.
    3. Microsoft should not be able to provide free internet service 
to schools as a part of

[[Page 25822]]

any revised settlement, as msn provides good service and up-to-date 
software only for Windows based computers.
    4. If Intel or other PC clone based computers are provided to 
schools for free as a part of this settlement Microsoft should be 
required to bar these computers from being activated with Windows XP 
or other versions of Windows for a period of at least 5 years. This 
is technically doable at least for XP, as activation of XP requires 
users to call Microsoft and provide the computer's unique machine ID 
for activation.
    5. An alternative would be to require Microsoft to first pay 
victim competitors (if they are still in business) directly for 
damages, and use the remaining funds as described in 2 to 4 above. I 
hope that you will reconsider separating Microsoft's operating 
system, application software, and internet operations into three 
separate companies to promote fair competition for the benefit of 
all of us, and totally drop plans of this incredible competition 
devastating free giveaway of computers to schools unless they 
conform to restrictions like I mentioned in 2 to 5 above.
    Thank you for your time in reading this,
    John Nakai



MTC-00013701

From: Christian DIDELOT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:12am
Subject: Microsoft monopoly
    As a computer user forced to use Microsoft products due to their 
monopoly on the market, I urge you to take decisions and steps to 
enforce US federal anti-trust law and to continue sueing Microsoft 
for the anti-concurrency practices.
    Thank you for your help.
    Christian DIDELOT
    1201 Geneva--Switzerland



MTC-00013702

From: Craig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel the Microsoft settlement recently discussed ($1 bil of 
educational computers) was so inappropriate that I began to lose 
faith in the process. As a consumer, and multimedia developer I use 
both Macintosh and PC (Windows) computers. Microsoft's insistence in 
making the world comply with it, rather than it complying with 
industry standards affects me both professionally and personally. 
They seem to operate unilaterally, ignoring what is in the best 
interest of IT professionals, creative developers,and consumers. I 
believe they use their market dominance to bully everyone that 
stands in their way.
    Microsoft:
    1. Tries to co-opt Java, adversely effecting both web site 
visitors and developers. MS is clearly trying to destroy any 
computing standards other than its own proprietary standards.
    2. MS Explorer pops up warning screens about ``dangerous 
scripting'' whenever I try to view a quicktime file (again, 
quicktime is an competing but extremely popular file format). This 
also dramatically affects me as a developer.
    3. Maintains monopolies in word processing, spreadsheet, and 
business presentation software (Word, Excel, Powerpoint). This 
monopoly is not limited to the PC--but also impacts the Macintosh 
world. Microsoft's persistent bullying in the past, and with other 
enemies--and ``partners'' makes me suspicious that they can coerce 
Apple computer anytime they really want to.
    MS has seemed to steamroll everyone--including the government. I 
strongly support significant punitive charges($), as well as the 
partitioning of the company into discrete business entities.
    Thank you
    Craig Wall
    Access2
    1396 S York St.
    Denver CO 80210



MTC-00013703

From: Donald S. Casey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:22am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i have read the terms of the settlement concerning the company. 
Microsoft. i have followed the case and have followed the company 
for many years. it is fairly obvious that Microsoft, the company has 
one goal, that is to be the biggest and only software company for 
PC's. i think this is the definition of the word monopoly. as to 
their business practices, even they admit to being monopolistic at 
times. yes it is convenient to have a common operating system for 
PC's, and yes it is convenient to have a common source for software 
to use on these PC's. However, it is not in the best interest of the 
consumer or the operators of PC's to have only one option for 
software and for operating systems. it has been shown time and again 
that the pressure of competition fuels innovation and improvements 
in any endeavor and as to the fairness of pricing and distribution 
of product under a monopoly, that doesn't even need to be stated it 
is so obvious. so why this settlement? that is the only question, 
why the terms of this settlement which will allow Microsoft to 
essentially operate as is???????
    don casey



MTC-0013704

From: CHip FInch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:38am
Subject: Fair Justice
    Microsoft should pay damages to companies that were crushed in 
unlawful acts.
    1. I think a fair settlement would be for the US govt. to stop 
using microsoft products in a stance for the right and lawful thing 
to do. Use some sort of open source software. APPLE OSX would be a 
safer and cheaper option for our govt.
    2. Make microsoft pay 5 billion cash to the schools of this 
country for their own choice of use for technology. Suggest they buy 
apple products instead.
    This would be a fair punishment. It would open the door for 
competition and the most monopolized company a chance to compete on 
a level playing field.



MTC-00013705

From: Jerry Rakar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:42am
Subject: Microsoft suit
    Hi:
    I noticed a site with the info about the Microsoft antitrust 
suit. I wondering why the various Federal agencies never went after 
Microsoft as some legalities go after car sales or car manufacturers 
for ``lemon laws'' for problem vehicles and forced recalls. The 
reason I bring this up is that fact that Microsoft has been selling 
flawed products for all these years with known bugs. Then bugs are 
sometimes taken care of IF you buy their new version that fixes the 
bugs (and normally has more).
    That is like car dealers selling a product with a problem (and 
no recall is done) and says the problem will just be corrected in 
the current model IF you buy it. Just thought I would send you a 
thought to ponder (and hopefully can pass it on the agency who can 
act on it :-)
    Thank you for your time,
    Jerry



MTC-00013706

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:50am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We would like to comment about microsoft litigation.
    1. We think the law suit has been going on too long, wasting tax 
payers money. Nobody especially public will benefit from this 
lengthy court process but the lawyers. Microsoft will have to spend 
more and more for their lawyers and in return will have to get those 
back from consumers by raising the price of their softwares.
    2. It seems to us what the government is doing not for the 
consumers benefits but for Microsoft competitors'' benefits. We use 
window operating system because we like it even though we were given 
choice when we bought our new computer. We also have both internet 
explorer and Netscape but we use internet explorer more. We never 
feel that Microsoft inhibits us to choose anything, besides it makes 
easy for us to have internet explorer comes with the operating 
system. We are share holders of microsoft, oracle, Sun microsystems 
and AOL but that isn't the issue.
    3. Microsoft settlement to provide fund and computers and 
softwares to public schools is good thing. Apple is not happy 
because they dominate the school system. Why isn't it a monopoly 
issue for Apple? It's a free market, let's the students decide what 
they like.
    4. What the government try to control Microsoft is the worst 
thing that can happen to new innovation. Please let the companies 
compete freely in the open market allowing consumers to choose what 
they want not what the department of justice mandates.
    Sincerely,
    Mirin Bartle, M.D.
    Thomas R. Bartle, D.D.S.



MTC-00013707

From: Jeanette
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25823]]

Date: 1/18/02  1:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jan 15 2002
    Your Honor:
    I wish to take just a few minutes of your time to express my 
views regarding the pending action you will take on the issue before 
you : Proposed Final Judgement re: Microsoft I would implore you to 
look at this situation in a true ethical American way. If you 
should, you will find your decision very easy to make.
    This country is founded in the ethics that all are created equal 
and have the same rights. Success, such as Microsoft has had, does 
not give them the liberty to dominate the software technology market 
just because they have the bucks to be the big Daddy. The kids need 
a chance to succeed as well. America thrives on competition.
    Please allow America to continue to provide a fair market place 
for the smaller guys. Please do not make ``Money makes might'' 
right. Personally, I like Microsoft and hardly use anything else. 
BUT--please don't choke the others out. Please retain my right to 
have a choice!!! I am a 52 year old professional--Registered Nurse 
with a Master's in Nursing and hopefully, soon to be a Nurse 
Practitioner.
    I was raised as a janitor's daughter. I have lived and traveled 
all over the world. I have spent 18 years as a single Mom, raising 
two fine boys from the ages of 7 and 5 at the time of their father's 
unexpected death. I know hardship and grief. But I look to you to 
make sound decisions in cases like this where politics go out the 
window and common decency rules. I look to you to do this to 
maintain my faith in this government and country--to give me a sense 
that my personal sacrifices paying taxes and supporting this country 
are validated and worthwhile.
    You really don't have a choice if you are to maintain what the 
terrorists, anarchists, and other NON-law abiding folks would take 
from us: our integrity and purpose as a nation: FREEDOM. Please rule 
in favor of the small guys. The regular folks. Please don't strangle 
their chance to make a living--let alone a bust!!
    I pray for God's peace and blessing in your life. He has 
afforded you this authority in our beloved country. Please exercise 
prudent and fair judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Jeanette Jones, RN, MN
    2645 I Street
    Springfield, Oregon 97477
    541-915-6060



MTC-00013708

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft again demonstrates utter disrespect and mockery for 
the judicial process by proposing a settlment which not only 
minimizes their punishment but also extends their monopoly power and 
hurts the very companies they have exercised this power against for 
so many years. Microsoft should pay damages to Netscape, Sun, and 
Apple. They should also pay several billion dollars to schools with 
which the schools would have to purchase Apple computers. Finally, 
Microsoft should be broken into a ``Windows'' division and a 
``Applications'' division. They should be made an example of.
    Paul Games
    430 Brunswick Dr.
    Vallejo, CA 94591



MTC-00013709

From: Michael G. Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As the principal of an elementary school that uses computers, I 
wish to protest a decision that would inject MS software into the 
schools. Such a decision would extend and expand the dominance of 
the Windows OS and MS software. It would be highly ironic that the 
judicial solution to an anti-trust case would serve to increase the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    Michael G. Jones
    Alianza Charter School
    440 Arthur Road
    Watsonville, CA 95076
    Web Site: http://www.alianza.k12.ca.us
    Work: 831-728-6333
    Cell/VoiceMail: 831-332-9754
    Fax: 831-480-5882



MTC-00013710

From: Bob McCord
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a manager of a Silicon Valley startup and would like to 
quickly express my concerns about the Justice Departments Proposed 
Final Judgment in the Microsoft Antitrust case. It seems that the 
PFJ does not adhere to the U.S. Court of Appeals decision that any 
government settlement should have three elements:
    1. Terminate Microsofts monopoly.
    2. Deny Microsoft the profits of its past violations.
    3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity. To protect 
consumers and small competitive companies from monopolistic entities 
such as Microsoft, I believe that the elements proposed by the U.S 
Court of Appeals should be followed.
    Sincerely,
    Bob McCord
    858 Apricot Avenue
    Unit E
    Campbell, CA 95008
    (408) 371-0768



MTC-00013711

From: Richard Motofuji
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I, for one, would like to see Microsoft heavily punished for 
their anti-competitive tactics. They have used unethical tactics and 
have leveraged their market dominance to pressure other companies, 
both partners and competitors, into furthering their monopolistic 
strength.
    I believe the computing world would have been a better place if 
Microsoft had not crushed various competing platforms. Here are some 
of the most glaring examples:
    1. Netscape would probably have thrived as an alternative web-
based computing platform, had Microsoft not tied Internet Explorer 
to Windows. Instead, Netscape lost market share and momentum.
    2. IBM's OS/2 operating system was technically superior to any 
of Microsoft's OS products. Regrettably, IBM was pressured into 
stopping the development and shipment of OS/2 by Microsoft.
    In addition, although it may not affect the judgement of a truly 
objective court, it is clear that Microsoft has not been forthcoming 
when producing testimony or evidence in court:
    3. Bill Gates'' testimony consisted of obvious stalling tactics, 
clear hostility toward the prosecuting attorneys, and far too many 
claimed memory lapses. It is clear to me that he was hiding facts 
and attempting to avoid answering embarrassing questions.
    4. Microsoft produced falsified evidence in the form of a 
videotape purporting to show that it was impossible to extract 
Internet Explorer from Windows 98. So, although Microsoft has 
mounted a public relations campaign to plead its case, we are left 
with a monopoly that not only controls the vast majority of the 
business and home computing market. Microsoft is now attempting to 
enter into the home video console market and has recently purchased 
the most of the intellectual property of SGI (formerly Silicon 
Graphics.) Microsoft has also attempted to co-opt the Java 
programming language, and others, by creating their own variants 
that will only interoperate with the Windows OS. The sheer market 
share of Windows could cause Java to lose its cross-platform 
interoperability to become yet another proprietary
    Microsoft API.
    I believe that with alternative platforms such as Netscape and 
OS/2, the computing world would have been a better place. Microsoft 
would have had to compete on the ease-of-use, security, and 
reliability fronts. Now, with no major competitors, we are left with 
Microsoft products that are difficult to use, have an enormous 
number of security vulnerabilities, and are crash-prone.
    To me, it is clear that Microsoft has broken anti-trust laws. It 
is also clear that they have not fully cooperated with the 
Department of Justice. And it is clear that their tactics have not 
changed at all since the period under scrutiny in the Department of 
Justice anti-trust trial. Microsoft must be punished harshly for 
their actions, and they must not be allowed to act so arrogantly 
ever again. I think that a separation of the Windows and application 
program groups would be appropriate. A physical separation of the 
two groups, to different states, would also be necessary.
    Thank you,
    Richard Motofuji
    [email protected]



MTC-00013712

From: Alp Onalan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25824]]

    Dear Sir, Madam,
    I think the current settlement a great innovative way to benefit 
both the society and the involved parties on the antitrust trial.
    Regards,
    Alp Onalan
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.



MTC-00013713

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I understand that you are reviewing the Microsoft case. I've 
been following this case for the past year or so and have been 
discouraged by Microsoft's seeming ability to abuse antitrust laws. 
I've been disappointed as I've watched them violate the free market 
by trying to manipulate it. Though I have always been impressed with 
Microsoft as a corporation, I'm discouraged by this. Thank you for 
your consideration.
    Tiffany Martin
    (323) 465-0177
    1460 N. Mansfield Ave., #105
    L.A., CA 90028
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo. . . 



MTC-00013714

From: Eddie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    After review of the documents regarding the proposed settlement 
by Microsoft it is my belief that allowing Microsoft the donate it's 
own software as a viable means to settle this matter is a joke. All 
that does is put more of their product into a market that is already 
monopolized by them.
    It is my feeling that any settlement should be paid in cash or a 
manner that allows the recipient of the award to do whatever they 
want with the funds received. Having a cash settlement would allow 
the receiver to purchase products from any vender they want which 
would help spread the wealth to other venders besides Microsoft. It 
seemed that the goal of the lawsuit was to change the monoply 
influence of Micrsoft not to encourage it further.
    Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion
    Eddie



MTC-00013715

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen & Ladies I regards to this suet brought by the 10 
+or-- states about the way Microsoft runs its business, I think it's 
a terrible waste of government time and our tax dollars. I am 71 
years old and have been a computer user for about 16 -18 years. I've 
owned 3 different PCs and they have all used MS operating systems. 
When I got the last one I decided to use E-mail and later to have an 
Internet connection. My E-mail goes through Juno.com and my Internet 
is through A T & T. I have had no trouble changing services. I 
changed from MSN to A T & T because it was less expensive.
    I sincerely hope that this action can be terminated.
    sincerely
    Glen S. Hawley



MTC-00013716

From: Dimitria
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the U.S. department of Justice: As A U.S. citizen and user of 
Microsoft products I urge you to proceed with the approval of the 
Microsoft settlement as it has been drafted and approved by most 
parties involved so that this matter can be put behind us.
    Sincerely,
    Dimitri Alevizopoulos 52 E. 15th Ave, #L1 Columbus OH 43201



MTC-00013717

From: Krista Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    Approving the PFJ for Microsoft would be deceptive to the 
public, after all the open controversy regarding Microsoft's 
monopoly in the computer industry. Not only that, it would be 
detrimental to the free market idea that America's economy is based 
upon, and it would seem to grant special preference towards 
Microsoft and instigate a lot of controversy. Thank you for the time 
you are taking to review the public's opinion about this important 
decision you will have to make. I'm sure it will be the right one.
    Krista Walton
    614 West 35th Place #418
    Los Angeles, CA 90089



MTC-00013718

From: Douglas Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a former Windows OS user. I do still use Microsoft products 
when they are available for Mac.
    I think Jackson was correct in his findings. Microsoft is guilty 
of abusing it's current position of being the dominant OS.
    I think they are also guilty of fraudulent advertising. They 
mislead the unknowing public to believe their product is secure and 
stable. I had such bad experience with MS over the years with their 
``upgrades'' that I finally gave up.
    You would do the public a great disservice if you let MS get off 
too easy. Please do not let the settlement which they were to donate 
software and computers to schools go thru.
    This would only hurt competing OS's



MTC-00013719

From: LARRY BALOK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:50am
    Dear Sir; I think it is time to settle, let's get on with it. 
L.S.Balok



MTC-00013720

From: Dona M Herr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:06am
Subject: settlement
    Settlement should be fast & fair........ Am in favor of 
microsoft............. Please cast my vote/voice with myriads of 
others
    Sincerely,
    Dona Herr
    521 Nelson St.
    98284



MTC-00013721

From: Lindsay Rutter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I don't know much about law and politics (though I'm learning), 
but I know that our economical system is based on free enterprise. 
If Microsoft is given a monopoly over the computer market, that is 
the antithesis of free enterprise. I don't see how there could be 
ANY reason to grant such a proposal. I mean, Microsoft does rule the 
market, so there seems like there can be no possible competition, 
but how would we know if we don't encourage small computer 
developers? A monopoly is wrong, and that's that.
    Thank you.
    Lindsay Rutter 213-764-4146
    USC student



MTC-00013722

From: Regina Ragan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3'36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    Dear Judge,
    I am a middle school teacher, and only have recently gotten 
comfortable working on a computer for any mason besides using a word 
processor. When my daughter Lindsay told me about this campaign, I 
thought I should participate. I try and teach my students to be fair 
and to challenge them to create. If there was no competition for 
Microsoft, I think it would stop the growth of the computer 
industry. You do not run a race by yourself, you out run opponents. 
If there were no opponents, you could not compare yourself to others 
and improve. This Proposed Final Judgement is wrong and should not 
be approved by you, Judge Kotelly, it goes against the free market 
ideals that our democracy is partly founded upon. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely, Regina Ragan Guam Department of Education
    Box 10 1015 Turner Rd. Piti, Guam 96915



MTC-00013723

From: Austin Fusilier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:44am
Subject: Microsoft's Proposed Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Allow me to review the facts.
    (1) Microsoft has been ruled to have been in violation of the 
anti-trust laws. (Basically, Microsoft has a virtual anti-
competitive monopoly over the PC industry).
    (2) Microsoft proposes that it give massive amounts of computers 
and software to the

[[Page 25825]]

educational area of the PC industry. (The only portion of the 
industry that they do not have an iron-clad grip on). It seems to me 
(a rational human being) that this course of action will not only 
NOT put a halt to Microsoft's illegal business practices, it will 
allow them to FURTHER said practices, by further saturating the 
market with their software.
    The monetary ``penalty'' suggested is both laughable and 
negligible. Microsoft is one of the wealthiest corporations in the 
world--their finances are in no trouble whatsoever. They can easily 
absorb whatever funds would be used to distribute their PRODUCT. In 
fact, from a business point-of-view, the ``fines'' could be viewed 
as an investment in the future proliferation of the company's reach.
    In short, I, a voting citizen of the United States, am 
ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to this settlement proposed by Microsoft. I 
believe that it not only would undercut whatever legal actions were 
taken, the mere fact that it was offered is (I believe) a complete 
insult--a very revealing glimpse into just how much CONTEMPT the 
Microsoft corporation has for the United States'' Legal System.
    I thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion on the 
subject, and I pray the correct decision will be made--the choice 
that upholds the integrity of the United States'' Judicial Branch, 
and not the option that FURTHER destroys the solid foundations that 
the courts were built on.
    Brent Austin Fusilier



MTC-00013724

From: Thomas D. Kampp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:51am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Renata B. Hesse:
    I have recently noticed that two Web sites that used to function 
properly no longer do so. The two sites are http://
www.businessweek.com & http://www.mapquest.com
    Common problem: After going to these Web sites, mouse clicks or 
data entry is not responsive, followed by the browser becoming quite 
slow in responding, even if one switches to another Web site. Also, 
pages do not completely load; the Home page only loads an ad at the 
top of the page with the rest of the screen blank and a message at 
the bottom reading Done. The only fix is to quit & then restart the 
browser. These sites are not authorized to download any code or 
data-stream that disables or interferes with any of my applications, 
programs, or files.
    My computer is a Macintosh PowerBook G3 FireWire running Mac OS 
v 9.1 running Netscape v 4.76 browser & Eudora v 5.1.0 e-mail 
client. I may be wrong, but I suspect that the above sites may be 
using Microsoft software. If so, then I strongly suggest that you 
consider the case that Microsoft not interfere with programs, 
applications, and files that conform to open standards. In other 
words, Microsoft should not be allowed to break nonMicrosoft code, 
programs, applications, files, or interfere with computer 
operations. I, for one, do not consider their behavior as a benefit 
to consumers.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Dr. Kampp
    Thomas D. Kampp, Ph.D., DABR
    e-mail: [email protected]
    Tel: 949 395-6245



MTC-00013725

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen,
    The proposed settlement, plain and simple, is another way for 
Microsoft to attempt to dominate yet another segment of the American 
computer market, namely education. It is entirely consistant with 
MS's previous tactics of gaining a foothold in certain markets to 
the degree of excluding choices for the end user. The end user who 
is then firmly entrenched in MS's products to the degree that it 
becomes difficult to adopt other choices without great disruption or 
costs. It is an attempt to dominate, not through QUALITY, or by 
choice of the end user, but by SATURATION.
    Did anyone doubt, that when MS began imbedding its own web 
browser within its MS Windows 95 operating system, that 90 percent 
of the American computing public would go through the effort and 
hassle of removing it (made nearly impossible by MS) for the sake of 
installing a web browser from a competing company?
    Once Microsoft has donated (used) computers and (conveniently) 
thousands of copies of THEIR software to schools, the typical and 
predictable reaction is for those schools to continue to use MS's 
products in the future. Not because of free choice on their part, 
but because it would be too disruptive to look to other 
alternatives. Is Microsoft sincerly concerned about devoting 
resources to poorer inner city education? Or is MS trying to further 
its monopoly? The simple answer would be for you to ask Microsoft to 
donate the same amount of APPLE Computer Macintosh systems and 
software to those schools, and watch as MS does an about face so 
quickly that a giant sonic boom rumbles thru-out the land.
    Would the US justice system allow a person convicted of 
counterfeiting US dollars to pay thier fines using the same 
counterfiet bills as they were convicted of printing? Gentlemen, 
this company is thumbing it's nose at the antitrust laws of this 
country, and at YOU. It is doing it in such a blatent manner that Im 
shocked to see this offer even being CONSIDERED. Please do not allow 
this monopolistic giant to put a stranglehold on ever more of this 
country's computers under the guise of ``paying its penance'' To do 
so would be to allow MS to be punished by gaining even more market 
share.
    Thank you,
    Kelly Cederholm
    Regards, Kelly
    ``The only time Microsoft will ever have a product that doesnt 
suck, is the day they start selling vacume cleaners''
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013726

From: Margaret Flint
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Flint
1756 H. H. Rd.
Fonda, NY 12068
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Flint



MTC-00013727

From: Mary Krystyniak
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  12:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Krystyniak
5845 Townhouse Lane
Beaumont, TX 77707
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
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 25826]]

progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than 
bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers 
on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Krystyniak



MTC-00013728

From: James Boyd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Boyd
2706 CR 108
Carthage, TX 75633-5507
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Boyd



MTC-00013729

From: Debbie Turner
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debbie Turner
2690 Throatlatch Lane
Marietta, GA 30064-4467
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Debbie Turner



MTC-00013730

From: Jean Rogers
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  3:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Rogers
3845 Shore Blvd.
Oldsmar, FL 34677
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Rogers



MTC-00013731

From: Don Detherow
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Detherow
7304 Russellville Rd
Bowling Green, ky 42101
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Glenda Detherow



MTC-00013732

From: Debra Baptist
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debra Baptist
2600 N. 5th Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-2012
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of 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 25827]]

losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 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 A. Baptist



MTC-00013733

From: Eric Cheatwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  3:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Cheatwood
86 Austin Street #208
Worcester, MA 01609-2956
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Cheatwood



MTC-00013734

From: Gregory Lane
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Lane
2667 Alosta Street
San Diego, CA 92154-4202
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 G. Lane



MTC-00013735

From: Todd Biagioli
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Todd Biagioli
3637 Radford Street Apt A
Norfolk, VA 23513
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Biagioli



MTC-00013736

From: William Campbell Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Campbell Sr.
1328 Woodlawn Street
Punta Gorda, fl 33950
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rev. Wm J. Campbell Sr.



MTC-00013737

From: Donald & Kathryn Johnson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/17/02  9:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald & Kathryn Johnson
2154 East Dallas Drive
Terre Haute,, IN 47802-5133
January 17, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers 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 25828]]

    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Donald & Kathryn Johnson



MTC-00013738

From: Steve Bumgardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:56am
Subject: Microsoft's EULA
    So, why is it OK with the federal government for Hewlett Packard 
and Microsoft to force me to buy a copy of Windows? I know for a 
fact that I've been stolen from (and the Microsoft EULA is a one 
sided lie). I'm just wondering why the government doesn't care.
    What kind of kick back did you guys get?



MTC-00013739

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft has intentionall built up it's Windows 
operating system to eliminate the competition. They knowingly 
release products that are incompatible with certain types of 
software in an effort to eliminate the opposition. The most recent 
one that comes to mind is Windows XP's incompatibality with Apple's 
Quicktime, which took plenty of complaining and finally a fix from 
Apple, not Microsoft. By allowing Microsoft to settle this case by 
flooding schools with their products will only help to further their 
infiltration of the consumers home, by getting children used to 
using a Windows based PC at early age, they are making the consumer 
identify with their brand, and continue to use Windows based PCs in 
the future. A more viable alternative would be to fund competitors, 
or 3rd party software manufactures looking to create applications 
for Windows (such as an Internet Explorer alternative or support for 
Linux). I appreciate the government allowing the public to voice 
their opinion, and look forward to future opportunities.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Konar



MTC-00013740

From: Warren-Albert Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    What are you thinking?????
    Accept an offer from Microsoft to supply schools with free 
software (read: bury Apple)? Let them go on unabated? Slap them on 
the wrist and go ``Tsk, tsk, naughty, naughty''? Why in the hell was 
there a lawsuit in the first place, morons? MICROSOFT MUST BE 
REIGNED IN! PERIOD! No less than the the future of software 
inovation depends on it, make no mistake.



MTC-00013741

From: lm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:37am
Subject: memo
    Hello ,
    It 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.''
    Best regards,
    michael
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00013742

From: Claudio Rossetto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Simply I agree Sun Microsystems position on the case.
    Claudio Rossetto
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00013744

From: Gregg Christman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I am very concerned the way you are punishing Microsoft. 
Microsoft is a successful company because they create products that 
consumers and businesses want to purchase. No one is putting a gun 
to their potential customers and saying you must purchase Microsoft 
products.
    Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on software. Sometimes I don't 
think the government lives in the real world. For example, I am a 
professional salesman and I pack a bag everyday and go out and call 
on potential customers. My customers purchase my product because I 
sell them the product based on the features and benefits they will 
receive by using my product the same way Microsoft wins customers at 
the end of the day. Another key point that you need to consider is 
this ridiculous lawsuit is costing the government billions of 
dollars of lost revenue because the stock is severly depressed 
because of the lawsuit and is having an adverse effect on our 
economy. This lawsuit needs to be ended and we need to get back to 
business and getting our economy moving forward.
    Gregg Christman [email protected]



MTC-00013745

From: James Saunders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's stop wasting money and energy on this ridiculous lawsuit. 
The truth is consumers have benefited mightily, as has the entire 
economy from the hard work and tenacious efforts of Bill Gates. 
Persecution of such hard work and success is unbelievable to most 
reasonable people. It is time to put the lawyers out of business. . 
. . take a look at what they are doing to American business with 
asbestos lawsuits. . . .no one wins but trial lawyers. No one will 
win by crushing Microsoft, especially the consumer. Please consider 
dropping any further action. Sincerely, Pat Saunders (Very 
satisified Consumer)



MTC-00013746

From: Marcus Mackey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:43 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a 26 year old college alumni, I've been using computers for a 
large portion of my life. From the Commodore 64/128 to the Apple II 
to various PC's (my own and schools), Mac's (my own and schools), my 
old Commodore Amiga, and even onward and upward to Unix, Linux, et 
al. As someone that's used multiple platforms, I can honestly tell 
you that the state of the computer industry has been a fallacy for 
numerous years due to lack of government intervention into anti-
competitive business tactics.
    The previous settlement with Microsoft, in which plans were 
designed to bring hundreds of thousands of Windows PC's into the 
lower income schools where a lack of equipment puts them lightyears 
behind what other students has initially sounds like a good idea. 
That is until you consider the fact that this exacerbates the 
problem, allowing Microsoft to get away with further improving their 
marketable stance, weaseling their way into a market that is 
currently held by one of their largest and fiercest remaining 
competitors; Apple.
    With this said, what do I perceive should be done? For one, 
Microsoft should not be sent on their merry ways with a slap on the 
wrist. If they have been found to be guilty, allowing them to go on 
with a minimal settlement will do nothing other than strive them of 
cash that as a billion dollar company, is a mere slap on the wrist. 
The originally proposed plan to split Microsoft still at this stage 
sounds like one of the only solutions to bring any form of sanity 
into the U.S. And International computer economy.
    This is becoming and ongoing, outward moving, and even larger 
threat as Microsoft, like a plague, continues to expand, grow, 
attempting to conquer, quell, crush, and destroy any semblance of 
competition that stands in their way. From their efforts at 
releasing a game console to beat Sony, to attempting to knock off 
3Com's spun-off Palm division. To attempts at beating Apple, 
attempts to destroy what remaining computer makers that exist 
outside of their reach as in the recently publicized anti-
competitive tactics Microsoft took against Silicon Graphics (SGI), 
and most recently in an article published on The Register, their 
purchase of much of SGI's 3D graphics standards, which allows them 
to destroy the OpenGL standard and ultimately work at pushing 
Microsoft's own Direct3D as the progenitor, not via competition, but 
via conquering. The gloom nature of the OpenGL purchase is such, 
that Microsoft will have complete control over all 3D standards, 
including the OpenGL standard which companies such as Apple, SGI 
themselves, and various game card developers have depended on. Apple 
of which has integrated the OpenGL architecture into their latest 
operating system, and one of the last major competitors to the 
Windows franchise, in Mac OS X.
    Microsoft's Internet Explorer has all but killed off and 
rendered Netscape a shadow of what it was, via highly anti-
competitive practices. Opera is but a miniscule player, as are 
browsers such as iCab, and OmniWeb, which are both Macintosh 
specific browsers

[[Page 25829]]

further miniaturizing their competitive abilities. Noone can compete 
against Microsoft in key areas where they bully their way in.
    Whose left? Sun Microsystems, who painted into a corner watches 
as the onslaught of Microsoft, Intel (another anti-competitive and 
monopolistic player over the years), Dell, Compaq, and others 
continue to attempt to widdle away at Sun's marketing edge, using 
more scalable versions of Windows to attempt to do what Solaris can. 
SGI, which is quickly eroding away into nothing, amidst 
uncertainties, slow sales, and inability to retain it's focus for 
any semblance of a future lies struggling, writhing to reclaim some 
semblance of ability to compete. Apple, funded by Microsoft, 
dependant on Microsoft products like Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and 
Internet Explorer; and ability to integrate into PC-controlled MS 
Exchange servers to use Outlook, Entourage, or Outlook Express to 
connect. How does Apple survive under these premises when 
competitors independent now suffer, struggle, writher, and look at 
the grim potentials? This is why, as the DOJ, it is your imminent 
obligation to ``PROTECT'' the economy, the people of this great 
nation. If Microsoft does take control, which they're already well 
on the way to doing (as they already dominate the market as it 
stands), they can stifle any semblance of innovation, control 
pricings far worse than they do now, and ultimately turn this 
country into a country whose economy, once largely based in 
computers, sits wrenching and bellyaching; as the potential to slay 
the monolithic dragon Microsoft could become in their anti-
competitive ability to lie dormant, stagnant. Keeping Microsoft on 
their toes, forcing them to innovate rather than duplicate, then 
bully via their massive heft to assure that the market remains 
theirs. It is time for a computer world with a decisively larger 
marketshare. One with more than Windows. One that allows companies 
like Apple, Sun, HP (via HP/UX), SGI, IBM (via AIX), Palm, et al. To 
compete against Microsoft on all levels. To not allow Microsoft to 
win by default via bullying, beating, and pounding their competition 
to death.
    Is having the world of computers tied to a single company 
healthy? From the Melissa virus, to various worms, to the problems 
with Microsoft's NET strategy; problems that affect Microsoft and 
Microsoft alone; does having 90% of the world's computing tied to 
Microsoft make sense? When a virus that affects Windows can't affect 
the Mac (unless it runs Windows via VirtualPC), can't effect PalmOS, 
can't affect a Linux box (unless it runs a Windows compatibility 
layer like WINE) . . . The point is, if a choice is given, which 
hasn't been an option since the early 1990's; and if there's limited 
choice in the web browser market as having a browser ``tossed in the 
box'' as IE is on PC, and as it ships default on Mac OS CD's 
(although it's easier to choose the option on the Mac; yet the 
alternatives are no longer as promising because it's difficult for 
them to compete with a free browser like IE from a company that does 
it to control their own destiny), choice in what machines you can 
run, choice in having those said browsers, office programs, etc. 
etc. available on all platforms that remain viable (such as Solaris, 
Irix, Linux, Unix, QNX, Mac OS, Palm OS, Windows) in some guise. . . 
 You rectify the problem. My personal solution, is that what should 
happen is this. Microsoft should be split into two factions, one 
that develops applications like IE, Office (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, 
Access, Entourage) Outlook, Outlook Express, FrontPage, Publisher, 
Media Player. The other faction should be Windows for varying 
platforms (PC, Pocket PC, etc.). From there, Microsoft should be 
forced to release the source code to the Windows API's, the 
Application Plug-in Interfaces. API's are the cornerstone to 
compatibility, and with those being openly available in the market; 
other companies such as Apple, Sun, SGI can roll Windows-
compatibility into their systems with limited performance 
degradations (applications written for Windows could be recompiled 
with those API's on all subsequent platforms).
    The Application division would still be allowed to build all 
versions of their software as previous. The Windows division, wholly 
removed from the Application tie, would be forced to either a) 
innovate by competing with the competition with all of the same 
applications available (further forcing Microsoft to prove they can 
innovate and compete without bullying, which in effect would teach 
them a lesson if they couldn't); b) it would also give Microsoft an 
immediate leg-up as they'd still be the first to have full Windows 
application compatibility remaining, however they'd have to rework 
their system to support a lack of IE-integration; c) it would also 
allow variants of Linux to step-up to the plate, and work on their 
own Open-source alternatives to Windows, and in turn give the 
Windows division another competitor. Currently Linux struggles to 
compete against Microsoft because key programs, like Office, IE, 
Frontpage, Publisher do not exist or are not offered by Microsoft. 
Doing what the government can to split the market up as much as 
possible, and bring in a greater degree of competition is almost 
like ``resetting'' the market to where it was before Microsoft 
leveraged and bullied their way to the top (which is where we're at 
now, market domination and saturation); which imminently was due to 
the Federal Government's lack of participation, analyzation, and 
studies into the business acts of companies that deserve extreme 
scrutiny.
    Band-aid's won't help . . . And while Judge Pinfield-Jackson's 
rulings might be perceived as hasty and ill-advised, so is any light 
smack on the wrist, light dent into the personal pocketbook, when 
compared to the business tactics and atrocities Microsoft has 
achieved over the year's through their own brand of bullying, 
bulldozing, and brandishing of competitors as Microsoft has done 
through anti-competitive tactics. From vaporware announcements, to 
destroying competition by undermining and undercutting (in the case 
of IE vs. Netscape). Microsoft's brand of competition must, I 
stress, MUST be stopped before casualties expand into Apple, Sun, 
SGI, and spread farther into their own blood in terms of Sony (who 
they supply Windows to for VAIO's, but compete against with X-Box), 
to beyond. Please read this and seriously consider ``FORCING'' 
Microsoft to innovate rather than copy and bully the competition. 
PLEASE, I beg you . . . Do the right thing, seek justice, and help 
reset the industry so that it might ``FINALLY'' be allowed to evolve 
in a logical sense that makes sense and doesn't leave us falling 
prey to damages from being stuck and tied to ``one'' entity in the 
end.
    Sincerely,
    Marcus Mackey [email protected]



MTC-00013747

From: Hugh Betcha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:44am
    Microsoft is a Monopoly in the classic sense!



MTC-00013748

From: Blake W. Hiatt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Justice department should never have gone after Microsoft to 
begin with. This case was started by rival companies who were merely 
using the government as another way to attack Microsoft and their 
success. So, what it comes down to. .I do not like the settlement, 
because the suits against Microsoft should never have started.



MTC-00013749

From: Peter C.S. Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The so-called ``settlement'' is a humiliating cave-in to 
Microsoft. Have we lost all control over corporations in this 
country? Microsoft, Exxon, Polaroid, Enron . . . they do whatever 
they want because they know the U.S. Government will roll over for 
them when they say ``play dead.'' Have some guts, Justice, or is 
John Ashcroft too worried about the Microsoft stock in his 
portfolio?
    Peter C.S. Adams
    222 Edgewater Drive
    Framingham, MA 01702



MTC-00013750

From: Michael Vallance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Now that Microsoft is ALLOWED to GIVE AWAY (aka Donate!) Windows 
to schools throughout the world as part of this settlement they are 
undermining all the objective evaluations of other operating systems 
such as Apple for school labs and SUN for servers. Microsoft has a 
history of unfair practice and for this business mentality to infect 
education is sad and to the detriment of the future of our children 
throughout the world.
    Microsoft kills competition and is unfair in its operations.
    Michael Vallance
    Michael Vallance
    Lecturer,
    National Institute of Education, Singapore.

[[Page 25830]]

    [email protected]



MTC-00013751

From: Chris Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have concerns that this proposed settlement neglects the 
principle of equity in justice. While understanding the need for an 
expeditious end to a very long case, and while questioning some of 
the anti-Free market presuppositions brought by the DoJ, I still 
have to wonder if justice has been served. There has been no 
admission of guilt by Microsoft. This is remarkable in light of the 
evidence presented during the trial and even the initial findings of 
Judge Jackson.
    Chris Larson
    Greenville, SC



MTC-00013752

From: John Gladu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement that could increase Microsoft's market share, 
such as the proposed give-away of computers and software to schools, 
would further their monopoly. I read that that proposal had been 
rejected, but it is very important that the new settlement proposals 
be reviewed carefully to insure that they reduce Microsoft's 
monopoly powers and send a message that such practices will be 
costly for those that perpetrate them.
    bcnu--John Gladu Opinions are just that
    Technical Analyst BCM User Support Services
    INTERNET: [email protected] VOICE: SPOC--713-798-USER
    Room IREL300 One Baylor Plaza, Houston, Texas 77030-3498



MTC-00013753

From: aaron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:29am
Subject: proposed remedy
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    Having read all of the documents provided pursuant to the 
revised proposed Final Judgment in the United States vs. Microsoft I 
have the following comments:
    (1) I was relieved that provisions that would have certainly 
worked to extend Microsoft's monopoly into the one PC market where 
some semblance of competition still exists, namely the education 
market, were removed. As someone who works in the technology 
industry (though not in competition with Microsoft) I was shocked 
that the court would decide to ``punish'' Microsoft by granting it 
the task of providing cut-rate software and hardware to schools 
where such resources were in short supply. While the intent of this 
remedy was no doubt noble the impact on competition in the education 
market would have been devastating. Indeed, if Microsoft had decided 
to do this of its own volition the legality of such a move would be 
in question, and would probably have been challenged by Apple 
Computers, who would stand to lose considerable market share by 
being undercut by a company that already has a monopoly in most 
other areas of personal computing use.
    (2) While I am glad that the proposed penalty discussed in (1) 
was removed, I failed to see any mention of a replacement penalty 
against Microsoft in any of the documents associated with the 
revised proposed Final Judgment. Given that it has been demonstrated 
that Microsoft engaged in illegal behavior in using its monopoly 
power to place unreasonable restraints on competition, and in so 
doing caused irreparable damage to many of its competitors, simply 
putting in place measures to curtail future anti-competitive 
behavior provides insufficient remedy. The goals Microsoft wished to 
achieve by engaging in said anti-competitive behaviors as revealed 
in court documents dating back to 1995, namely the elimination of 
Netscape as a major contender in the browser market, have already 
come to pass. This damage to Netscape and to the American consumer 
has already been accomplished and any reasonable remedy needs to 
provide some penalty to punish the illegal actions that resulted in 
an enormous benefit to Microsoft and allowed it to extend its 
monopoly. Otherwise, Microsoft has quite simply been allowed to reap 
the benefits of its illegal activities. Penalties that would have 
sufficient impact on Microsoft as to provide a deterrent to future 
illegal are necessary in the case. Such penalties that would have an 
impact on Microsoft would be 1) a very large and meaningful fine, in 
addition to 2) requiring Microsoft Windows to ship with Netscape in 
a prominent position, if not as the default browser, possibly along 
with payments to Netscape to address Netscape's loss caused by 
Microsoft's misuse of their monopoly 3) requiring Microsoft Windows 
to ship with the Java Runtime Engine installed (Windows XP has 
removed all Java support, for reasons that are clearly laid out in 
court documents). These penalties are even more necessary now that 
the effects of Microsoft's illegal actions are known: 1) Internet 
Explorer is now the dominant internet browser, 2) support for Java 
is now gone from Windows, 3) Micrososft has shown contempt for 
attempts by the United States to limit the abuse of its monopoly by 
releasing Windows XP earlier than announced to avoid a threatened 
government halt on its release. 4) Windows 98 demonstrated an 
escalation of Mircosoft's abuses of it monopoly by tying its 
operating system controls to non-operating system services provided 
by Microsoft. For example, a first use of the ``connect to 
internet'' desktop icon and control panel misleadingly brings up 
Microsoft's internet service sign-up as the only option. Even a 
professional computer-user such as myself had great difficulty 
trying to figure out how I would set up Windows 98 to connect to the 
internet with another Internet Service Provider.
    (3) I believe that Microsoft's past actions demonstrate clearly 
that the proposed relief will not be sufficient to avoid anti-
competitive abuse of monopoly on Microsoft's part. The current case 
against Microsoft has not impeded them from undertaking and in many 
cases escalating anti-competitive behavior, simply because the 
slowness of the legal process has allowed Microsoft to eliminate 
future competition effectively before court action can be taken. As 
in the current case, the damage has been done long before the court 
can come to a settlement of grievances. In the absence of any 
significant, penalty it is unlikely that the few safeguards put into 
place in the revised proposed Final Judgment (e.g. limited freedom 
from retaliation by Microsoft against computer manufacturers for 
allowing the prominent display of non-Microsoft middleware) could 
have an impact. Microsoft has broken the law and has shown every 
intention of continuing to engage in anti-competitive behavior and 
to abuse its monopoly to the detriment of business and consumers. 
This state of affairs necessitates very serious and profound 
government action to protect what is quite possibly the most 
important sector of the American economy from becoming the fiefdom 
of a single company. I believe a broad investigation into Microsofts 
current and past business practices and the proper punishment of the 
abuses that are discovered is the only way to return this sector of 
the economy to normalcy. Microsoft did not get to where it is today 
by the traditional busines practice of providing the best products 
and services at the best price, this has been demonstrated clearly 
by the court, and strident measures should be taken to insure that 
it does not continue to reap the benefits of its illegal activity as 
it currently is.
    Sincerely,
    Aaron Lawson



MTC-00013754

From: Nugent, Rodger
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To the Department of Justice,
    I am a mac user that enjoys the use of Microsoft products day in 
and day out. I'm useing microsoft outlook web based email client and 
Internet Explorer for the Macintosh. What I believe the company is 
doing is dominating the market by cutting out the smaller 
developers. They leave no room what so ever for integration. And 
they do not believe in world standards other than that of their own. 
I am from a college that runs NT servers, you are no doubt getting 
this email from an NT server. These are buy-far the worst 
implementation of a server made. It seems that they didn't work with 
any other computer except Windows. Yes, they were supposed to, but 
the DHCP wasn't sending out correct packets to macs on a regular 
basis as well as to unix computers, so we had to go static IP. We 
finally switched the DHCP server over to Linux and everything for 
some reason is smooth. I find their software corrupt.
    When did word processors take up more space on your computer 
than highly intensive 3-D applications and programs like Adobe 
Photoshop 6.0 for the MAC? They don't seem to care about 
archetecture with in the program. They are a company known only to 
add new code onto old code continuously with out taking out what 
old, but instead only relying on processors to get faster to crunch 
down unnessary code.

[[Page 25831]]

    They should make all of their products open source, and whoever 
modifies the program will be paid money. But hey, a simple chore 
like that I wouldn't trust to that company at this point. In an 
ideal world, everyone would make their own operating system for 
their hardware as Apple, Amiga, and other great computers do. There 
should be a licensing cap with Windows and everyone should stive to 
make their own flavor of Unix, which is designed specifically for 
the computer's general tasks.
    Also the U.S. courts should create a set of General Code 
Guidelines [GCG] which enable programs to be ported easily between 
``flavors of unix'' such as Mac OS X based Unix as well as Red Hat 
and Debian as well as other great builds. I'll keep this short, but 
please be cautious of what you are doing and don't listen to their 
over-paid lawyers so much, they are only out to trick you after all 
that is their job description isn't it? One more thing, give more 
kudos to Apple, their only goal in life is to create a computer that 
is user-friendly at the user and server levels, they are our model 
company.
    Rodger Nugent, Bethel College



MTC-00013755

From: Brent J. Nordquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a software professional of over 10 years experience, I have 
significant concerns that the proposed settlement is inadequate to 
provide redress for Microsoft's proven, illegal use of their 
monopoly power, and to prevent them from continuing this pattern in 
the future. Here are my concerns:
    (1) The disclosure of APIs for the purposes of interoperability 
is a very important measure, and I applaud its inclusion. Vibrant 
competition in any market produces the best result for consumers; 
for example, the x86 instruction set, the recent heated competition 
of Intel and AMD, and the resulting increase in processing power per 
unit cost demonstrates this point. However, the security exceptions 
given in III.J.1 and III.J.2 will give Microsoft the loophole they 
need to refuse to document modern APIs which increasingly have 
security built into them. Microsoft's hold on such APIs as WIN32, 
such protocols as SMB (file sharing), and such file formats as 
Microsoft Word .doc files, and Microsoft's strategy of altering and 
not fully documenting them with every release, is one of the ways 
they preserve their monopoly status and force consumers to upgrade, 
to the detriment of consumer choice and healthy competition. 
Certainly ``keys [and] authorization tokens'' are properly excluded, 
but the settlement wording should be strengthened to specifically 
require not only the complete documentation for every API, but also 
a fully functional reference implementation of each API. This is how 
Internet standards (such as RFCs and IETF standards) are handled. 
Anyone who says that an API or reference implementation cannot be 
fully provided due to security concerns is relying on ``security by 
obscurity'' and does not understand how computing security really 
works.
    (2) The conduct of Microsoft in question resulted in their 
making profits far above what a free, competitive market would have 
allowed, on the basis of their illegally-maintained monopoly status. 
This profiting was to the detriment of consumers worldwide. The 
settlement is wholly inadequate in providing compensation to the 
consumers who were so negatively impacted. Any settlement should 
include a substantial refund to consumers who purchased Microsoft 
products (directly, or through OEM agreements with hardware 
vendors). The penalty should be sizable enough (given Microsoft's 
size and resulting extremely large sales and profit numbers) to 
serve as a deterrent to future illegal conduct.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Brent J. Nordquist
    13289 Killdeer St. NW
    Coon Rapids, MN 55448-1396
    Brent J. Nordquist [email protected]> N0BJN



MTC-00013756

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:35am
Subject: MicrosoftSettlement
    Dear Sir/Madame,
    I am an artist and software developer in New York City. I 
strongly object to the current terms of settlement in the DOJ vs. 
Microsoft antitrust case presently under consideration. I believe 
that the software industry has achieved sufficient complexity in its 
development to mandate a complete seperation between ANY Operating 
Systems company and ANY Productivity Software company. As we have 
seen, if a company provides both Operating System software as well 
as Productivity Software there is ample room for abuse of so-called 
third-party developers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Rukavina



MTC-00013757

From: Jonathan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
To: USDOJ
    I think that anyone with any type of understanding knows that 
M$'s proposal to donate 1B. in software/hardware to the education 
market is a total crock (they don't actually spend much on the 
software, the hardware will be windows only, therefore helping to 
push Apple out of one of the few markets that M$ has any competition 
with). If the US DOJ let's this go bye it's a total farse.
    Microsoft has constantly abused it's monopoly power & will only 
continue to do so if left unchecked. They keep on pushing into other 
markets & soon I fear that they'll just be to powerful for any 
govornment to stop (seriously). If the US DOJ is having problems 
with them now, imagine what it'll be like 10 years from now when 
they've taken over many more markets, have that much more control, 
$$$ & invluence. In my opinion, they must be stoped now.
    Jonathan Gracey



MTC-00013758

From: Langer, Jurian
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  9:51am
Subject: question
    Dear Sir, Madam
    At the moment, I write my PhD at the European University 
Institute (EUI), Florence dealing with the relationship between 
competition policy and standardisation regarding the Internet. In my 
thesis, I focus on the competition aspects of formal standard-
setting issues as well as de facto standards.
    I have tried unsuccessfully to find the US v Microsoft US Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision of 27 June 
2001 on your website.
    I would be most grateful if you would send me a copy of the 
decision or tell me where to find.
    Your sincerely,
    Jurian Langer
    Mr Jurian Langer LL.M (London) EMLE (Hamburg)
    Researcher
    Department of Law
    European University Institute
    Badia Fiesolana
    Via dei Roccettini 9
    I-50016 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI)
    ITALY



MTC-00013759

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to see this matter settled. Microsoft has only 
helped the computer industry and the general public. The government 
should go after the cable industry for monopolizing prices and 
products--we really have no choices with cable.



MTC-00013760

From: Tom Dickerson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purpose of this email is to express my opinion to the 
Department of Justice with respect to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement during the ``review period'', as required by The Tunney 
Act.
    Since I am a Human Being who seeks to live on Earth, I am-by 
that fact alone-a ``consumer''. Since I was born and raised in The 
United States, I suppose that makes me an ``American Consumer''. I 
have also followed this case since the investigations into 
Microsoft's activities began in the early nineties, in anticipation 
that the DoJ would eventually seek to invoke these arbitrary edicts 
that we call the ``antitrust laws'' in order to ``punish'' 
Microsoft.
    I was right.
    So as an American Consumer, I will state that I have benefited 
tremendously from the existence of Microsoft, including the actions 
taken by the organization's management, and of its employees. As 
evidence to my claim, I need to site just one thing: the rise of the 
price of Microsoft's stock from the point of inception of the 
corporation. I suspect that

[[Page 25832]]

this may come as a bit of a surprise to the Department, but we live 
in a (semi) free society! Free enough, however, that anyone who 
believed s/he would not benefit from Microsoft's products, was, and 
still is, free to ``sit on the sidelines'' and refrain from engaging 
in exchanges with Microsoft. And yet look at the rise of their 
stock, and observe all the ``consumers'' who decided they wanted to 
be in the game, including myself. Can the same be said of The United 
States Postal Service? When they want to raise their prices, you 
usually help them out, don't you? Funny-both Microsoft in the 
nineties and Ford Motor Company in the twenties lowered their prices 
(without anyone's help) and each became filthy rich. But I do not 
doubt for a minute if the Postal Service did that, they would go out 
of business. They really need you guys! But I wonder what causes 
this difference.
    I realize The Tunney Act is simply a means for the DoJ to give 
itself that lacquered look of a department that actually seeks 
justice-that by letting the ``little people'' like me bawl or cheer, 
as the case may be, you will make it appear that you're 
``considering all sides''-and that the act of me sending this email 
will be one more stroke of the varnish brush. Nevertheless, I want 
to participate in this act anyway, if for no other reason than to 
give you one more email that you have to delete from your hard drive 
before you behead the greatest corporation in American history. I 
know that The Tunney Act is a way for you to moisten your finger and 
thrust it into the air before you act, but the mere fact that you 
feel you need to do it proves what little confidence you have that 
the actions you're about to take are just. For if you had such 
confidence in your knowledge of the difference between right and 
wrong, you wouldn't feel the need to take an opinion poll of your 
potential victims-popular opinion will not tell you what is right or 
wrong, only a reasoning mind can do that. (This is tantamount to a 
farmer who takes an opinion poll of his sheep because wants to see 
if they'll be offended when he shears them.)
    There. You've got my opinion. Do you want to behead me now? If 
so, send me an email at the address below and I will give you 
directions to my apartment. However, I may not be there because, in 
addition to being a consumer I also happen to be a producer, which 
means I'm usually really busy. Here's how you can get a key to my 
building though: ask any employee of The United States Postal 
Service for one. You see, they get to have keys to my home for some 
reason, whereas the UPS people and the FedEx people have to leave 
sticky-notes on the door. I do not benefit from this.
    I wonder why that is.
    Thomas E. Dickerson
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Email: [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00013761

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice,
    It seems, that the issue of how to punish Microsoft for their 
behavior can be resolved with relatively simple measures. Here are 
some simple ideas that would probably work, either alone or in 
conjunction with each other.
    1) Punish Microsoft in a financially meaningful way. I don't 
mean a slap on the wrist, I mean something that will hurt and hurt 
so badly that they will be simply unable to consider using the same 
tactics again. I expect this would run into the hundreds of millions 
of dollars, maybe even into the billions. Split this money equally 
between their 100 biggest competitors; Palm, Apple, RedHat, etc. 
This solution is so simple it seems silly to mention it, but it 
would work, and well.
    2) Limit the markets they can operate in. Get them out of 
telecommunications, entertainment and ``palmtop'' devices.
    3) Establish quotas for the total number of computers sold with 
Microsoft software. For example, establish a law dictating that all 
computer stores sell a minimum of 25% of computers (discounting 
``palmtops'') running something other than Microsoft Windows. This 
could be Unix, Linux, Mac OS, or any number of other wonderful 
operating systems that just can't get off the ground due to 
Microsoft's monopoly. Be comes to mind as the prime example of a 
dramatically superior product failing because Microsoft holds an 
illegal and immoral monopoly on the market. (Image a small company 
building a car that was three times as efficient, twice as fast, 
four times as safe, twice as easy to drive, and cost half as much as 
any other car on the road. Now imagine that the company just can't 
sell them because of illegal market pressure from GM, Ford, etc. 
This is what happened to Be Inc.)
    4) A *company* does not make decisions, people make decisions. 
Go after and punish the *people* at Microsoft who made these 
decisions. Throw Bill Gates in jail. Send a message to *all* 
companies that the persons responsible for making the decisions are 
*responsible* for the results of those decisions.
    Truly, Microsoft's Orwellian tactics are frightening.
    Sincerely,
    David Butler
    All-around-computer-guru ;-)



MTC-00013762

From: Jerome Dowdle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:24am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I feel it is in the best interest of the consumers to settle the 
suit with the nine holdout states on the terms that have been agreed 
to by the other states and the goverment.



MTC-00013763

From: Kevin Eldridge
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I have just read several articles from different news sites on 
the Internet which are covering the sale of SGI intellectual 
properties to Microsoft. These properties are all related to 3D 
APIs, and might even include the industry-standard 3D API, OpenGL. 
It is a well known fact that Microsoft has been trying it's best to 
kill off OpenGL, in favor of it's own proprietary 3D API, DirectX. 
There are documented instances of Microsoft dropping OpenGL from 
builds of it's Operating System, Windows, as far back as Windows 98. 
Now, in light of the fact that Microsoft now owns the vast majority 
of SGI 3D API properties, and the fact that Apple Computer uses the 
OpenGL API as a core component in Mac OS X, I would be afraid that 
Microsoft is, once again, trying to cut out a competitor with 
strong-arm tactics. After all, if Microsoft refuses to license 
OpenGL to Apple, and also refuses to port their propriety 3D API to 
Mac OS X; well, we have another case of anti-trust in action!
    I would hope that someone with the Justice Department could 
investigate this further, and help prevent Microsoft from taking 
another stab at killing it's one true competitor, Apple Computers.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kevin S. Eldridge
    Repair Technician
    Wave Wireless Networking
    A Division of Speedcom International
    7020 Professional Parkway East
    Sarasota, FL 34240
    1.941.907.2368 (direct line)
    1.941.320.7860 (cell)
    [email protected]
    www.wavewireless.com
    Wave Wireless is an ISO 9001 certified company



MTC-00013764

From: Ted Grimes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I appreciate the request that we consumers respond to the 
settlement with regard to Microsoft. I have been a ``Microsoft 
consumer'' for many years and am using Microsoft products to produce 
this email. I truly fear that this whole project by our government 
against a successful commercial enterprise has been overbearing and 
largely unjust. It seems to me that jealousy, envy and greed are 
accurate labels to apply to our system of criminal justice, in this 
case, from the lowliest attorney to the highest court involved, 
including the suing states. Class warfare? Yes. Take from the rich 
to satisfy this baser urge to knock down the successful? Yes. Is 
success being punished for any right reason? I have my doubts.
    I connect the current recession, at least in part, to the anti-
big-business efforts that are popular among certain political 
parties and labor unions. It seems to be a power struggle of the 
mighty forces of government against a vulnerable big business with 
enviable success. And the root of this evil is the love of money. 
Vice President Quayle had it right in his report on reform of the 
legal profession, reported toward the end of his administration's 
term in office. Frivolous lawsuits motivated by the money trail 
continue to dominate our culture. It is

[[Page 25833]]

politically and culturally incorrect to criticize our judiciary and 
the elements that make it up. In fact it can be downright dangerous. 
Just ask Dan or Bill Gates. It seems culturally and politically 
correct to pick on the medical profession at will, warranted or not. 
The cost of litigation, no matter whether or not it is just, has 
increased our cost of purchasing medical care and pharmaceuticals, 
autos and airplanes, and you name it, above and beyond what is 
reasonable. Arbitration should be used between disagreeing parties 
first. Lawyers should be by-passed, as well as the courts, at this 
level in our society. Lets get reasonable, enough is enough. 
Intelligent persons often can work things out to everyone's 
satisfaction. If not, the legal wars take over at hugely inflated 
cost.
    Many doctors would probably practice medicine a few more years 
had they nor feared the ``loss of everything in one fell swoop'' on 
any given response to the emergency room. The chill of this kind of 
over bearing so called justice is high in the mind of any investor. 
Is the risk really worth it? The Microsoft settlement is chilling on 
business and society. The original judge in the matter was awful in 
his mis-use of power. I sincerely disagree with Mr. and Mrs. Bill 
Gates promotion of the slaughter of innocents, world wide. Their 
money could be used humanely in many ways.
    James T. Grimes, MD
    Lyons, Kansas



MTC-00013765

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing this e-mail in regards to the Microsoft Anti-Trust 
Case. As an educator, I understand the necessity of ``having a level 
playing field.'' If a student does not have equal access to 
education, then they will have to overcome incredible odds to 
achieve sucess. Microsoft has created an unfair advantage through 
the use of coersion, deceit and blatant libel. Other companies, such 
as Apple and Netscape have suffered nearly fatal losses as a 
consequence of such practices. It is my opinion that Microsoft 
should either A). pay reparations to all affected parties (which 
would be nearly impossible, as some entities no longer exist), B). 
be broken into smaller companies, with assests distributed, and/ or 
C). Make it's products free to anyone for a period of time.
    Thank you for refusing to be intimidated by their bullish 
tactics!
    Jason Scherley
    LD Tutor
    Western Reserve High School
    Collins, OH



MTC-00013766

From: Jeremy Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement solves absolutely nothing. How much of a 
deterrent is this settlement really going to be? Microsoft, even now 
with the acquisition of the SGI OpenGL patents, is positioning 
themselves to dominate the 3d graphics industry, suppressing 
innovation from 3D card makers by denying them licenses and forcing 
a standard solely defined by Microsoft, rather than the panel of 
industry leaders that up until now have encouraged innovation and 
have provided an open environment to provide 3d graphics 
implementations on multiple platforms. Microsoft now has the power 
to eliminate OpenGL in favor of it's proprietary DirectX framework. 
This is just ONE example of behavior that will continue at Microsoft 
unless a more encompassing settlement is reached, or unless the 
settlement is withdrawn in favor of a Final Judgement that is in the 
interests of the United States. We must prevent this type of 
behavior from sprouting up again, not just in Microsoft, but in any 
future corporation. The proposed settlement is like telling 
companies that it is fine to violate the Antitrust laws because the 
penalties aren't as bad as the benefits. I for one am deeply afraid 
of an environment that would allow companies to get away with this 
kind of activity without severe penalties as defined by law.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jeremy E. Bell
    22209 H. Dr North
    Marshall, MI 49068



MTC-00013767

From: Laurence Bates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:36am
Subject: government case against Microsoft was poorly construed
    I believe that the government case against Microsoft was poorly 
construed and demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of modern 
software technology and the means of technological innovation. The 
case should be dropped or replaced with specific laws which govern 
agreements that require EXPLICIT exclusion of third party hardware 
or software. This could have been dealt with quite easily had Sun 
and Netscape not tried to do to Microsoft, through a very flawed and 
partisan legal system, what they could not do in the marketplace. 
Apart from which, the founder of Sun is IMHO a conceited bore.
    Laurence A. Bates
    Michigan State University
    College of Education
    217E Erickson Hall
    East Lansing, MI 48824
    [email protected]
    517-355-2178



MTC-00013768

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern--
    I am, and have been for years, a simple (perhaps more simple 
than most) Microsoft software user.
    I have used, and am still using, Microsoft's products, both at 
work and at home, and am not wholly uncritical of the quality and 
reliability of their products (except when you compare them to all 
the rest). Their computer operating system (beginning, for me in the 
early 90's, with Windows 2.0 and its subsequent improvements and 
upgrades) and their application software (Word, Excel, Money, 
Encarta, Streets & Trips, etc.) have improved my life beyond 
anything I can measure. I can't imagine what my life would have been 
like without the use of their innovative products.
    While I have not closely followed the various Federal and State 
government's suits against Microsoft, I believe an outcome harmful 
to Microsoft will negatively affect Microsoft's ability to meet my 
needs, personally, both now and in the future. I do not believe that 
punishing Microsoft is in the public's (nor my) interest.
    While it is true that Microsoft has profited enormously from 
selling its products and doubtlessly has a very aggressive (and 
clever) marketing strategy, I don't believe it could have prevailed 
over the competition unless its products were actually superior. I, 
along with all the others, would have sought out and used the better 
products, if there were any. Also, the fact that most of Microsoft's 
software works with and interacts with most of its other software is 
very advantageous to me. That this may disadvantage Microsoft's 
competitors from a marketing viewpoint is of little concern to me.
    Furthermore, Microsoft has provided me (and the millions of 
others) their products at prices that are ridiculously small 
compared to their usefulness. If Microsoft has a monopoly on selling 
these products, why have the costs (to me, and everyone else) 
continued to decline? I do have a complaint about Microsoft: On 
those occasions (admittedly relatively few) when my lack of 
knowledge, understanding, and/or computer sophistication causes me 
to have operating problems with their software, and I have failed as 
well to discern an answer from their enormously comprehensive (but 
Byzantine) website designed to provide solutions to users with 
problems, I am unable to talk directly to one of their technicians 
without being charged a fee for their ``services.''
    However, it also seems reasonable to me that Microsoft cannot be 
held accountable for my ignorance (and laziness) and should be 
entitled to some compensation for providing me with the information 
I need on those occasions. Their policy, coupled with my thriftiness 
(cheapness), has sometimes resulted in my digging more deeply into 
their various free resources, finding solutions myself, and becoming 
more educated and self-reliant as a result (a good thing).
    I appreciate the DOJ looking out for my interests whenever their 
efforts actually are in my interest (i.e., prosecuting people guilty 
of election fraud, and terrorists). In this case, I think the DOJ's 
efforts are misguided, very wasteful of their limited time and 
resources (which my taxes help pay for), and not in my interest at 
all.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected]
    Michael T. Thompson
    503 West Le Roy Avenue
    Arcadia, CA 91007-7335
    (626) 574-8446



MTC-00013769

From: Debbie Purdie

[[Page 25834]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the POLITICS AS USUAL!
    Accept the settlement and let's move on! Enough is enough!
    Debbie Purdie
    [email protected]
    EarthLink: It's your Internet.



MTC-00013770

From: Marylin Cowan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:54am
    As a Microsoft proponent, I strongly urge the government to 
settle the existing litigation as the previous litigation was 
settled. Do not allow the existing nine states that are holding out 
to permit this litigation to go any further.
    Please end it!
    Marylin Cowan
    3085 Sunnybrook Lane
    Colorado Springs, CO 80904
    [email protected]



MTC-00013771

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:54am
Subject: Microsoft-settlement
Mark B Quick
5214 Valerie Street
Bellaire, TX 77401
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you today to express my support for the recent 
settlement reached between the Attorney General and Microsoft. As a 
nation, America has been under very trying times in the past six 
months. Uncertainty plagues American confidence in business and the 
world around us. It seems unreasonable for the federal government to 
continue to concentrate on possible antitrust litigation against 
Microsoft during these times. I hope that the Justice Department 
would have different priorities during this time. Microsoft, in 
addition, has been readily available to resolve this issue. 
Microsoft has given computer makers broad new rights that will allow 
them to reconfigure the operating system to their own likings. Now 
users will be able to add or delete programs to the Windows system 
at their discretion. This represents broad new changes in the 
computing industry. Without doubt, I hope the Justice Department 
will resolve the dispute. It is unfortunate that the Justice 
Department has to focus on such matters at this time. I believe it 
is in the best interest of the nation to enact the settlement 
without hesitation.
    Sincerely,
    Mark B Quick
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013772

From: Joe Reardon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:59am
Subject: USAGReardon--Joseph--1081--0116
18821 Dembridge Drive
Davidson, NC 28036
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like voice my support for the settlement of the 
Microsoft Anti Trust case. It is great to see that our government is 
working to end this lawsuit. Microsoft has contributed jobs and 
high-demand products to the economy. It is time to let them get back 
to business and focus on innovation, not lawsuits. The settlement 
promises change in Microsoft's business practices that will foster 
more competition in the IT industry. To put a quick end to this 
three-year lawsuit, Microsoft has agreed to more terms in the 
settlement than the lawsuit challenged. The settlement is a 
reasonable compromise.
    I support the Microsoft-endorsed settlement and would like to 
see an end to the lawsuit. No further action should be taken against 
Microsoft. Our economy needs this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Reardon
    cc: Representative Mel Watt
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw,fin @mobilization . . .



MTC-00013773

From: Thomas Oughton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In my opinion the current proposed settlement is not a penalty. 
Microsoft owns the computer desktop. They have used this monopoly to 
move into and take over the browser market and the office suite 
market. They are now using this to move into the streaming media 
market, pushing out the existing players. Rather then using the 
existing standards used by the existing players Microsoft has 
created a new ``standard'' that will only work with Microsoft 
players. As they ship these players for free with the OS and can 
easily start out with millions of players out in the market place, 
how long until Real and the other streaming media vendors are pushed 
out? Microsoft is also using their monopoly in the desktop OS market 
to push their .NET marketing strategy. They require the owners of 
Windows XP to join Microsoft Passport one of the main parts of .NET 
or Windows XP will stop functioning.
    When cable tv was growing at a rapid pace, US West wanted to use 
their existing infrastructure to provide cable tv, but because their 
monopoly would have given them an unfair advantage they were bared 
from entering into new technological areas. Why is Microsoft allowed 
to use its monopoly to move into areas where it has an unfair 
advantage over the companies that pioneered the new area. In my 
opinion, I say let Microsoft have the desktop OS but don't allow 
them to move into the new technnology areas until there are firmly 
established companys that can be on equal footing in that area with 
Microsoft's juggernaut. These areas include internet service 
servers, streaming media and large and medium sized server operating 
systems software. They have already moved into tv (MSNBC, Ultimate 
TV), video games (Xbox) and as a internet service provider (MSN). 
They have over 30 billion dollars cash just looking for other areas 
to expand into. The holdout states'' proposed settlement is a lot 
closer to what I think should be done if Microsoft isn't treated 
like a public utility and controlled by a commission.
    Thanks
    Tom Oughton



MTC-00013775

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's monopoly over federal government computers is the 
source of both Bill Gates'' wealth and the disastrous impact on 
productivity within the federal government as a ``new operating 
system'' is ``introduced'' every year, with its attendant need for 
more powerful computers, relearning all the software, patching over 
the millions of bugs, and the inability of older programs to read or 
work with the ``newfangled super-duper'' ones. Microsoft should be 
prohibited from introducing new software until it has been fully 
tested for smooth operation and compatibility with previous 
programs, and should be required to provide every new program to the 
federal government FREE OF CHARGE, in appreciation for the billions 
they have already stolen from our tax money. In the meantime, the 
federal government should immediately issue a re-compete process on 
the full operating system, all results of which must be made public 
before purchasing or deciding on any standard whatsoever.
    Dian Hardison
    ex-NASA, Florida



MTC-00013776

From: Bob Cloninger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:17am
Subject: Proposed settlement.
    Microsoft has violated (albeit creatively) every agreement made 
with DOJ in the past. This settlement does nothing to prevent that 
or restore the companies (and lives) they have illegally destroyed.



MTC-00013777

From: jerry richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:17am
Subject: USAGRichard--Gerald--1022--0115
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Attorney General,
    I am writing to address the antitrust settlement reached between 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Bringing the antitrust 
proceedings to an immediate close will benefit the economy, 
particularly important now during the recent economic downturn. To 
that end, I am in favor of the current antitrust settlement with 
Microsoft.

[[Page 25835]]

Under the terms of the current settlement, Microsoft will design all 
future versions of its Windows operating system to be much more 
compliant with competitors'' peripheral software components. This 
will allow consumers to have greater freedom in choosing and 
customize components within Windows.
    In addition, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose 
various internal interfaces of Windows to its competitors for the 
purpose of more compatible software development. I have been a long 
time user of Microsoft's Windows products and I have never 
encountered any serious problems with them, certainly nothing that 
would warrant the economic disruption, which the antitrust 
proceedings have contributed to. In short, I urge you to support the 
antitrust settlement for the sake of getting our economy back on 
track. We need our heavy hitters in the IT sector now more then 
ever.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald Richard
    CC: Representative David E. Bonior



MTC-00013778

From: Daniel John Klett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Provisions should be made to protect alternate Operating 
Systems. This can be done by forcing Microsoft to continue producing 
software, like Word, Excel, as well as games for both the Mac OS and 
the Linux OS. No Operating system can exist on the consumer side if 
basic Microsoft Applications, like Office, do not exist.



MTC-00013779

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft has great software at a reasonable price. 
If the government went after drugs dealers the way they went after 
Bill Gates there would be no drug problem in the United States. 
Settle this case before we go broke spending all of the taxpayers 
money. I think president Clinton made a mistake when he deregulated 
the Cable TV industry. My bills have gone up every year since he 
Deregulated and I've noticed that Time Warner cable has brought up 
most of the little local companies and that's a monopoly.



MTC-00013780

From: STEVE FADULLON
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:26am
Subject: Enough is enough, especially when the issue is not only 
about money. This a
    Enough is enough, especially when the issue is not only about 
money. This a country of innovations and inventions, the bulwark of 
freedom that fans ingenuity and excellence. While commerce generates 
the resources that sustains this freedom, it should not be forgotten 
that money while needed is not the end but only the means. The 
freedom to attain excellence should not be stifle and allow 
mediocracy to set in. We must sustain growth because as the world's 
leader we need strength of mind and purpose that will overcome 
terrorism and the unexpecterd to befall us as a test of our armor. 
The settlement is more than adequate to compensate for whatever 
wrong has been done perhaps out of sheer in attention because of the 
company's focus. The damage, if any, has been will compensated. Let 
progress proceed unimpeded in an area that us young and promising 
for development--the product for the future.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Respectfully,
    ESTEBAN T. FADULLON, Jr.



MTC-00013781

From: David Allen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My views on the Microsoft Settlement are expressed in the 
attached letter.
    David Allen
    [email protected]
    David Allen 1827 Ellison Creek Road
    C??emmons, NC 27012-8059
    January 18, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft US Justice Dept. 950 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW Washington,
    DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. This settlement 
is fair and reasonable, and I am anxious to see this dispute 
resolved. This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft ultimately agreed to additional terms than were actually 
at issue in the initial lawsuit, just to finish. In the end, 
Microsoft agreed to share more information with other companies, 
including certain internal interfaces in Windows and protocols 
implemented in Windows'' operating system products. I feel that 
Microsoft has gone well beyond what should be expected of a company 
in a democracy to reach an agreement and settle the dispute.
    Microsoft is a good company that designs good products. This 
litigation is a waste of resources, and I believe the ongoing 
litigation is having a significant negative effect on the economy. 
Please support the settlement and end this dispute. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Allen



MTC-00013782

From: Michael McIntyre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comment
    Dear People,
    Thank your for this opportunity for public comment. I have 
worked in the Information Technology field all of my professional 
life. I have observed many good technological advances thwarted by 
the Microsoft monopoly, either by being muscled out of the 
marketplace or acquired by Microsoft and diluted. This is extremely 
hurtful to our country's technological leadership and tradition of 
entrepreneurship. The most important outcome of the settlement of 
this case must be that competitive and alternative operating systems 
(e.g. Linux, Macintosh OS X) as well as applications and standards 
(e.g. Quicktime, Java) be given a fair chance to survive and prove 
themselves on their technical merits. Without DoJ imposed 
constraints, the Microsoft Corporation will continue its 
monopolistic elimination of competitors. We will then be left with 
one option for computing systems from a company with no motivation 
to innovate or produce quality products.
    I urge you to maintain and nurture an environment where existing 
and new competitive products can be developed and thrive without 
being squashed by Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Michael
    Michael McIntyreWeb Manager & Systems Consultant
    UM Population Studies Center
    734.998.6275 www.psc.isr.umich.edu



MTC-00013783

From: Martin Kabila
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:33am
Subject: BUSINESS PROPOSAL
TEL: 871-762918980
FAX: 871-762918981
Email: [email protected]
ATTENTION: DIRECTOR/CEO
RE: URGENT ASSISTANCE.
    Kindly allow me the modesty of introducing myself. I am Martin 
Kabila, the son of the former head the state / President of Congo-
Kinshasha (then called Zaire) President Laurent Desire Kabila.
    I got your particulars through the Chamber of Commerce. However, 
I am contacting you in order to ask for your assistance on this 
confidential business proposal with full financial benefit for both 
of us. Before I got into further details, please be informed that I 
am writing without any other person(s) pre-knowledge of contacting 
you on this transaction. Therefore, I will appreciate same attitude 
to be maintained all through.
    I have the sum of USD$48 Million from a secret sale of Diamond 
by my late father before he was assassinated by his bodyguard 
(Rashid) on January 16th 2001, which I will like you to receive on 
my behalf due to security reasons, as my narration below will 
explain. But before I continue, be well informed that your share in 
this transaction has been calculated at 20% of the total sum of 
USD$48 Million, 5% for expenses and the rest for my family and me. 
However, my father as a real African traditionalist was a 
polygamist, thereby having married so many wives, and my mother 
being the second wife of my father, my stepbrother Joseph, who is 
the current president of my Country, is the son of the first wife 
and he does not have my knowledge about this deal. Already, 
president Joseph is using his power of office to colonize all the 
money and private properties, which our father left behind for the 
whole family. Now, my mother and I are left with noting in the 
inheritance of my late father's wealth. Our situation is seriously 
critical that we need your assistance to help us receive these funds 
overseas for proper investment.
    Let me quickly assure you the 100% safe proof of this 
transaction because, the

[[Page 25836]]

Diamond sales are packed from the onset in a pattern that shows no 
trace or linkage with us (Kabila family). At present, the money is 
in cash and is secured in a Security Company as family treasury.
    I am writing for your swift and favorable response. You are to 
contact me via my direct Tel: 871-762918980. Fax: 871-762918981. or 
by using the above e-mail address. Your urgent responses is highly 
needed, and in case you have any question(s), don't hesitate to ask 
me.
    Best regards,
    Martin Kabila.



MTC-00013784

From: Randy Robert Boring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Please do not agree to any settlement with Microsoft which lets 
them increase their ill-gotten market share.
    One of the most dastardly methods of increasing market share is 
to give away your product to customers in a sector (such as 
education) that is contested by a rival. After the customers have 
installed your ``free'' software, they get used to using it and base 
their workflow upon it. Then, when an upgrade is needed (perhaps 
that version stops working with the latest operation system 
software), those customers are usually retained, but now at a large 
cost to the customer.
    Do NOT let Microsoft give away copies of their software to 
anyone! It is NOT a penalty to them in any sense. It is a marketing 
strategy. One which is not only successful for Microsoft, but is 
also very detrimental to its rivals, as they have to compete with a 
``free'' product. That is VERY difficult to do. It also seems wrong 
for an award not to go to those who won the case, but that's for 
someone else to argue. I understand the difficulties of finding 
everyone harmed by Microsoft. Perhaps you could just send a small 
check to every household in America. You'd be certain to reach every 
American victim, and it would only overcompensate by a small 
fraction, as their software runs on about 90% of computers. Maybe 
include a suggestion that if the person does not feel that they were 
hurt by Microsoft that they donate that amount to the President's 
Afghanistan relief fund.
    Hope that helps,
    Randy Boring
    233 Merribrook Trail
    Duncanville, TX 75116
    P.S. I work for a small company, Thursby Software, which writes 
software that enables non-Microsoft computers (Apple Macintoshes) to 
interoperate with Windows PCs. So we sort of compete with them, but 
we work with them, too.



MTC-00013785

From: Frank Serafini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why kill the Golden Goose that made the industryn what it is 
today? With all the other, more important matters to be dealt with, 
I don't see how the Justice Department ever thought it right to go 
after Microsoft. There should never have been a suit brought against 
the company simply for doing well and producing a product that most 
everyone likes. I feel that not enough people realize how much 
Microsoft has given over, in order to reach a settlement in this 
case and move on. Do people realize, that by giving so much access 
to their code and by designing future versions of Windows to operate 
more efficiently with competitor's software. Microsoft is helping 
it's competition at its own expense? I hope they will learn more 
about the settlement and come to appreciate just how much Microsoft 
is giving up.
    It is high time for both Microsofi and our Justice Department to 
move on to more important matters and leave the case behind. I only 
hope thet the states realize their mistake and join the rest of 
America in supporting the settlement.
    Sincerely
    Francis H. Serafini
    14103 Kint Circle
    San Antonio, Texas 78247



MTC-00013786

From: Timothy Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:59am
Subject: Buying SGI's patents is anti-competitive.
    Good Lord.
    Microsoft has purchased the 3d patents of SGI. SGI had the best 
3d rendering technology available and the SEC let them buy it from 
SGI> Now MS will be able to kill this superior technology and push 
their expensive, licensed, inferior one on the market. The DOJ ruled 
``Don't do it again!'' and yet they do it, and do it , and do it. 
Stop these 800,000,000 pound gorillas now or this court will be 
remembered in history books as the justices who when they had the 
chance to stop the bad guys, they blinked.
    Tim Cox



MTC-00013787

From: Pete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pete Baxter
7201 Tall Tree Lane Charlotte, North Carolina 28214
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice 950 
Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my support for Microsoft 
regarding the antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a great company that 
has contributed a great deal to our society and daily lives. This 
company should not be stifled or restricted. The settlement that was 
reached in November is complete and fair. Microsoft has agreed to 
all terms of this agreement. Under this settlement, Microsoft must 
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. Microsoft must also 
disclose information about certain internal interfaces in Windows. 
Microsoft should not be punished for being successful. Success is a 
goal that every American worker strives for. Please support the 
settlement that was reached in November. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Pete Baxter



MTC-00013788

From: WIDMAN,ERICK (Non-A-LumiLEDs,ex1)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    Although Judge Jackson made unfair, unprofessional comments 
about Microsoft during the most recent trial, this should not 
diminish his findings regarding Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. 
Please reject the government's proposed settlement and until 
something more robust is proposed.
    Very truly yours,
    Erick and Ivy Widman
    Concerned Citizens
    Address: 1700 N 1st #319, San Jose, CA, 95112
    Phone: 408-420-1777
    CC:'microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov''



MTC-00013789

From: Chuck LYNN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:50am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I wish to register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. The settlement does not do nearly enough to 
protect competitors or, as in my case, consumers.
    Chuck Lynn
    Computer Teacher
    Overland Park, Kansas



MTC-00013790

From: cmayer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement won't work because you have an 
expiration date of 5 years (with a one time possible 2 year 
extension). In the technology market, R&D for a killer app could 
take that long. So basically you're giving MS permission to patch up 
their current product line, smile while they're working on the next 
version, then go back to the same old thing. They could too. Thanks 
to the ``Product Activation'' in the XP products (for which I, and 
many people I know refuse to buy or use XP products over) MS could, 
in 5-7 years, refuse to grant new hardware activation numbers to 
users not using the ``new'' Windows. New computer buyers (like 
today), would not get a choice and would be subject to whatever new 
scheme MS planned for keeping users. Perhaps it would just be things 
like Microsoft only digital media formats with rights management 
that, like the new ``protected'' CDs (defined as such only because 
of form, they break the standard), would not work on all machines.
    In my opinion, digital rights control is the key to the next 
generation of computer

[[Page 25837]]

monopoly. It should be closely monitored and regulated in--the--
interest--of--the --consumer. Personally, I believe that the prices 
demanded for software and other media should allow consumers to 
freely use it within reasonable bounds. Microsoft is trying to 
release several formats only playable in their, or compliant, 
players. Now that basic HTML browsing is pretty well established, 
audio and video will be the next area to look at, and MS is already 
heading there. Your settlement seems aimed mainly at older issues.
    Microsoft continues it's trail in latching onto consumers in a 
way that they can't rid themselves entires of it. Simply allowing 
OEMs or developers to customize Windows a little won't prevent MS 
from ingraining itself into consumers lives with formats or 
agreements that not only replace previously platform independent 
formats (MP3, MPEG, Realvideo), but also continually pour money into 
Microsoft's pockets. I do, however, as computer support personnel, 
like the inclusion of opening up the APIs to allow for a standard 
network protocol and the like. What I would ask is that several 
industry-wide standards get put in place.
    1. A fair (and I do mean fair as in to the normal user, not fair 
as in a CEO's dream) standard for software licensing that retail 
software must abide by. This would include restrictions on dongles, 
``activation'' and the like. Perhaps the ``professional level'' of 
the software could dictate what copy protection schemes could or 
could not be used. I don't support piracy, that's not what I mean. 
It's more of a fear that my $2000 computer and $300 OS might all of 
a sudden be useless because MS for whatever reason wouldn't issue me 
a new key. Since Windows XP will pretty much be required in a couple 
of years for running any newer PC, I don't think it's entirely fair 
in the interest of keeping computers running and compatibility to 
have such a potentially finicky system. For a $7000 3D rendering 
application, a dongle seems reasonable though.
    2. A fair system for rights control (I think none is fair, since 
that's how things have been since audio recording came into being). 
Basically I'd like to see a regulation against reaming consumers 
that actually pay for things.
    3. Price caps for software. Again, ``professional'' level 
ranking might be needed to control it. I think it's ridiculous that 
a Windows and Office XP license combined cost as much as decent 
business machine to run them on. If applications and operating 
systems cost less, perhaps more people could afford to use them. Or 
perhaps more people would be willing to legally use applications. 
Many companies seem to think that a $100-$200 stripped down version 
of their program is affordable for most people. This probably 
wouldn't work for every single app on the earth. It would be nice if 
companies would offer actually affordable versions of software, but 
they probably never will. For things like Windows though, which as 
assumed before is basically a necessity, the price shouldn't be able 
to just jump up to half the cost of a low end computer. What's to 
stop MS from charging $500 or $1000 the next time around? OEMs would 
pay the licensing fee, consumers would be forced to upgrade for 
certain things.
    Basically, I don't think the settlement would do much in the 
long run . . . more needs to be done to protect the rights of the 
consumer. There needs to be a change in policy for digital media 
that actually helps the consumer rather than restrict them more. 
Since Microsoft is one of the worst offenders in the game of 
screwing customers over at the same time they make things 
``better'', this would be a good time to institute new laws and 
policies for the entire industry.



MTC-00013791

From: Richard Stoner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft should be forced to published in total 
the API file formats fully standardized and documented. This would 
allow for fair competition with other software developers and lead 
to more innovation. There must be strong enforcement of these 
rulings.
    Thank you
    Richard E Stoner
    San Jose California 95129



MTC-00013792

From: Pat Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Mr Ashcroft--
    As a retired public teacher from Crawford County, Bucyrus, Ohio, 
I encourage you to do all you can to get the Microsoft issue 
settled. It is fair to all parties and I think we should get on with 
business. I believe Microsoft has done more good for our government 
and people than harm.
    Thanks for your help.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Reed
    3233 Holmes Center Rd
    Bucyrus, ohio 44820



MTC-00013793

From: Karen Feltner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please see attached.
    TMBD Computer Systems Education and Consulting, Inc.
    207 North Moss Road, Suite 103
    Winter Springs, Florida 32708 (407) 327-9367 (Voice)-(407)
    327-9369 (FAX)
    January 18, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am quite pleased that the factious lawsuit between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft has ended with a settlement. It 
appears to me that most of the terms of the settlement are fair for 
both sides; I find that its greatest advantage is simply to remove 
the litigation from the courts. Given the inflammatory tone of the 
trial, it is better for those of us in the IT community, as well as 
for consumers in general to have this entire regrettable episode 
concluded. While the settlement is fair and realistic, providing for 
new changes in Windows designs and reassessment of licensing 
agreements that were considered unfair, the best thing about the 
settlement is that it will be over.
    I am writing to lend my support to the settlement. It is my hope 
that this sort of bitterness between our government and a private 
business should not be repeated.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Feltner
    Office Manager



MTC-00013794

From: Sangbong, Pius A. NMIMC GS
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement. (A Cry of the defeated)
    Is ``compete on the merits'' a new ``phraseology'' or word 
coinage aimed at pacifying the sniffling ant-Microsoft conglomerate 
of SUN, ORACLE, AOL, IBM and a string of others I don't care to 
mention? I have attended Seminars and work-shops at most of these 
corporations mentioned above. It is sad, at a humorous level, the 
degree of hypocrisy that prevails within these cultures. A good 
portion of every presentation is incomplete without the choicest 
interspersed infusion of real caustic sarcasm at Microsoft's 
expense. In spite of it, those presentations are a near 
impossibility without a Microsoft PowerPoint, Excel and the like. I 
say (If you can do better, make yours.)
    IBM introduced and marketed it's various platforms. If a crystal 
ball could tell of declining market shears years later, IBM would 
have done everything to stay on top of things. If AOL only new how 
to eliminate competition in Internet provision, all the free-inets, 
and MSN included, would be history. Else, why is there so much 
merging, Partnering and acquiring of any sprouting establishment 
that has potential in the Communication ``promise land''? ORACLE 
came up the rungs (rolling and scratching ), IBM's DB2 and 
Microsoft's MS.SQL not withstanding. ORACLE wouldn't hesitate to 
tell you it's product is the only answer, anyone with an ear ought 
to listen to. Quality of functionality besides, it is perfectly 
heart worming to Conner at least 60% of the database market. Why not 
?
    It is a cutthroat competitive atmosphere out there. If winner 
can take all, why stop at 60%, 65, % or even at 95% market monopoly. 
Problem is, ORACLE will snatch the opportunity, if only it knew how. 
And I do not think they have given up that drive or hope.
    SUN Micro systems parades a line of it's own platforms, ushering 
UNIX, or Linux and what ever else it prefers. If SUN, as well as 
it's back-up cheer leaders and supporters, could only come up with 
desk-top applications (the parallel of Microsoft Office suit, etc., 
etc., etc.), to market with its systems, who knows what prayer they 
might have in that domain? Netscape Navigator ceded to IE, just as 
DB2 ultimately Succumbed to Oracle. C/C++ are withering under the 
steam from SUN's hot coffee. Why is Microsoft so able to survive 
despite the array of back-stabbers? It is a human world , and we as 
humans have a tendency to

[[Page 25838]]

grudgingly concede, to something, or a strategy. We chid ourselves 
for, larcking the forsight, for not perceiving a concept, that was 
glaringly available, and worst, for letting someone else beat us to 
it. Why didn't we think of first ?. Reminds me so much of little 
Israel, surrounded by a host nations, that act not much better than 
they claim they are treated.
    This concludes my say about this matter.
    Thanks.
    Pius (DoD, civil service)



MTC-00013795

From: Christopher Day
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:15pm
Subject: Letter of Support Attached
CHRISTOPHER M. DAY, ESQ.
9855 Snowbound Court Vienna, VA 22181
January 18, 2001
Renata Hesse, Esq. Trial Attorney,
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW # 1200
Washington, DC 20530
By Email: [email protected]
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am an attorney in the Northern Virginia area and have heard 
that you have some responsibility with regard to the settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust case. I would like to commend the Department 
of Justice for negotiating a fair and reasonable Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment in the case.
    It is my opinion that the settlement is a fair one and should be 
fully enacted. Further litigation serves no party except Microsoft's 
direct competitors. The goal of our antitrust laws and regulations 
is to ultimately help the consumer through competition, not to 
necessarily reward other businesses that would, like to get ``in on 
the action.''
    It appears that the revised proposed final judgment strikes the 
right balance in effectively addressing Microsoft's unacceptable 
practices and also preserves consumer choice. The agreement calls 
for uniform pricing and allows computer makers flexibility to 
configure Windows and promote non-Microsoft programs. Both 
interfaces and protocols necessary for other software to work with 
Windows must disclosed, and both retaliation and exclusive 
agreements are prohibited. An independently appointed permanent 
technical committee will monitor compliance and assist with dispute 
resolution. The U.S. or any of the states have a right to inspect 
all Microsoft documents and all source code for any Microsoft 
program, interview any Microsoft employee, and order Microsoft to 
prepare any report under oath regarding any issues relating to the 
final judgment. Any person may complain regarding noncompliance to 
the Justice Department, the states and/or the technical committee 
and the plaintiffs can immediately initiate proceedings to hold 
Microsoft in contempt. While this solution may not be perfect, it is 
certainly preferable to the alternatives.
    Thank you for your time and your efforts in this regard. Enjoy 
the New Year.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher M. Day



MTC-00013796

From: Robert Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:17pm
Subject: Letter to DOJ
    Greetings!
    I just received a call from your staff, and they asked me if I 
had sent our letter to you. We have sent a letter to the DOJ. We 
looked at the e-mail, and see no address to send another copy to 
you.
    If you would like a copy of our letter, which you have seen via 
e-mail, and which accuses certain competitors of attempting to 
undermine Microsoft in the courts, then please provide to us the 
address where you would like it sent.
    Nothing has angered us more than the behavior of Sun, Oracle, 
and others. With 30 years of experience in data processing, I can 
tell you that I have and will continue to avoid the use of their 
products. This strikes a nerve with all of us.
    Sincerely
    Bob Nelson
    Adventek, Inc.
    (904) 398-8247
    [email protected]



MTC-00013797

From: Pegi Anton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    Please review the letter enclosed. Microsoft-Stop.doc>>
    Pegi A. Anton
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    January 17, 2001
    Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court,
District of Columbia c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    I contact you today to urge you not to settle the government's 
case against Microsoft. The United States Government's 
responsibility to enforce federal antitrust laws against monopolies 
is vital to protecting the rights of consumers. Our antitrust laws 
have protected free markets and enhanced consumer welfare in this 
country for more than a century. The Microsoft case is a clear 
example of where antitrust enforcement action is necessary to insure 
vigorous competition in all sectors of today's economy.
    Please continue to support free enterprise and consumer rights 
by maintaining a fair playing field all.
    Respectfully,
    Pegi Anton
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa



MTC-00013798

From: Robert Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:20pm
Subject: Here is an e-mail copy
Bob Nelson Adventek, Inc. 1346 Woodward Ave. Jacksonville, Fl. 32207 
(904) 398-8247
January 5, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I feel that this lawsuit should never have been brought against 
Microsoft in the first place. To me, it seems, the suit was a result 
of successful lobbying by Microsoft's competitors. However, I am 
happy to see that the Department of Justice has finally gotten the 
sense to resolve this matter. The settlement has taken far too long 
to be reached and would have liked to see it more deferential toward 
Microsoft, rather than requiring Microsoft to disclose information, 
about internal interfaces within Windows and subjecting the company 
to the scrutiny of a technical review committee. However, I would 
hope that you would let your decision stand and not be further 
influenced by anti-Microsoft parties.
    I'm glad to offer my opinion on this matter, and I hope that you 
will use your influence to encourage the rest of the states to 
settle their suit against Microsoft so they will finally be left 
alone.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Nelson



MTC-00013799

From: Fields, Rick
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  12:23pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit
    As a programmer in the IT industry, I have been reading most 
articles and news pieces I could find on this subject. Assuming that 
the media have not misled me, it seems that Microsoft definitely and 
purposefully engaged in anti-competitive practices and then tried to 
deny/hide such actions. If Microsoft is found to be guilty of such 
actions (or admits to them), Microsoft should be penalized to the 
point where it is greatly discourged from ever doing such again. 
Whatever it takes to discourage such in the future should be done, 
whether it is breaking up the company, removing officers of the 
company, or other penalties/preventions. Microsoft should not be 
simply fined and monitored for a short time, the equivalent to a 
slap on the wrist, and then allowed to go back to anti-competitive 
practices.
    To boil my opinion down: If Microsoft has engaged in anti-
competitive practices, any means necessary to ensure they don't do 
it again should be used, just short of destroying the company.
    Thank you,
    Rick Fields
    Programmer
    [email protected]



MTC-00013801

From: Kathy Pyle
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  12:27pm
Subject: Comment on the Microsoft anti-trust case
    We just received a flyer from Americans for Technology 
Leadership, and I decided to let you know my impressions of the 
anti-turst case. Let me first say that the flyer was very 
irritiating--just another Microsoft ploy to get the American public 
on their side. Of course,

[[Page 25839]]

I checked out the website for this organization and found that 
Microsoft is a founding member. I wonder how much money Microsoft 
put towards this advertising campaign.
    In regards to the US vs Microsoft, I definitely think that our 
government backed down to Microsoft's big money. This settlement is 
not fair, and definitely does little to really punish Microsoft. 
This company keeps making crappy product, which they can do because 
they have monopolized the market. Let there be no doubt--I believe 
that Microsoft has monopolized the market! And please note that this 
comment comes from a technology reseller who sells Microsoft 
product.
    This flyer I received just confirms my understanding that 
Microsoft has not been punished. They are still spending millions of 
dollars to defend their position. Funny that they have so much money 
to waste; they are obviously price-gouging because they have 
eliminated any real competition. Why are they spending these 
millions unless they are guilty?
    Kathy Pyle
    Aptus Corporation
    Phone: 320-240-1022
    Fax: 320-240-1022
    [email protected] mailto:kathyp@aptusnet. com>



MTC-00013802

From: Tony Wren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    On January 9, 2002, Robert Lewis, a commentator and management 
consultant who writes for ``InfoWorld,'' a widely-read technology 
industry trade weekly, posted the following column. I am including 
it here for the sake of clarity, with my comments following.
    ``YOUR HONOR, we find the defendant incredibly guilty!''
Jury foreman, Mel Brooks'' The Producers
    NEXT TIME I get a traffic ticket, here's what I'll say in court: 
``Your honor, the court has found me guilty. I disagree. Also, I 
disagree in principle with the existence of speed limits on our 
nation's highways. Several theorists claim that highway traffic 
should be self-regulating--we should allow the overall flow of 
traffic to determine each driver's speed.
    ``In the case of the U.S. Department of Justice v. Microsoft, 
the courts established the precedent that when the defendant 
disagrees with both the law and the finding of the court, the 
prosecution and guilty party must negotiate as equals to define a 
settlement agreeable to both parties. I request the court to handle 
this case the same way.''
    Think it will work? Me neither.
    Regardless of whether you think antitrust laws are a mistake, 
obsolete, or inapplicable to the software industry and regardless of 
whether you personally think Microsoft was actually guilty or not, 
the outcome of the Department of Justice v. Microsoft was 
unambiguously disgraceful. With the departure of Joel Klein as lead 
prosecutor, and U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson--the 
Lance Ito of antitrust -- as judge, the fix was in. Microsoft said, 
``Play dead!'' and our government's executive branch--controlled, 
ironically enough, by the law ``n order party--obeyed. From this 
point forward, Microsoft has no constraints in its use of nonmarket 
forces to buttress its market position.
    As just one example, take a look at Microsoft's investment in 
Corel. Almost immediately, Corel discontinued WordPerfect Office for 
Linux. Because Apple, in its ongoing quest for marketplace 
irrelevance, persistently snubs corporate IT, Linux is the only 
significant threat to Windows on the desktop. Which means that just 
as CIOs and CTOs--faced with increasingly onerous licensing terms 
from Microsoft--are searching for a credible way to at least 
threaten to take their business elsewhere, Corel is running away 
from the opportunity. Instead, it's trying to sell WordPerfect head-
to-head against Microsoft in the Windows environment--a battle it 
has already lost. Pardon me for being suspicious.
    For several years I've predicted an impending implosion for 
Microsoft. I still see serious problems for the company: Microsoft 
is hemmed in on the server front and has such limited potential for 
growth on the desktop that it has turned to the only alternative it 
could think of: predatory licensing. Its problems, however, have 
receded now that our government has a ``for rent'' sign in the front 
yard that lets Microsoft obey--and require its customers and 
competitors to obey--only those laws it finds convenient.
    My comments:
    Ever since the settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft was announced, I have felt like a victim that has been 
asked to pay for the losses incurred by the burglar that has been 
found guilty of robbing me, and to pay for what he stole from me as 
well. Mr. Lewis'' article expresses that sentiment succinctly.
    The stated goal of the settlement was to ensure a competitive 
environment in the technology industry. As an observer and 
technology consumer for the past 35 years (as a student, researcher 
and now an academic), I can assure you that the settlement will do 
nothing of the kind.
    The only competitor to Microsoft that has any market share at 
all is Apple Computer, and their share is steadily falling (from 20% 
ten years ago to less than 5% at this time). Apple's new UNIX-based 
operating system, OS X, could compete with Microsoft's Windows under 
the proposed 9-State Settlement, and help restore some innovation to 
the industry. But if the status quo continues, MS will re-assert its 
dominance and its illegal practices, with devastating effect on on 
our economy. Some have said that it is already doing so, although I 
am not in a position to verify such claims. These facts have become 
increasingly obvious to impartial observers. Bob Lewis is just such 
an observer. I have been reading his columns for years, and trust 
him because he is rarely wrong.
    To put it bluntly, the proposed settlement places the current 
DOJ personnel in a very poor light: observers are universally 
reporting that the attorneys in charge of this case are behaving as 
if they are either incompetent or corrupt. As a taxpayer and 
consumer, listening to the near-unanimous condemnation of the 
proposed settlement, and adding my own experiences, I am forced to 
come to the same conclusion.
    I hope that you will reconsider this poorly-conceived settlement 
and prove the critics wrong.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Wren
    Chair, Department of Physical Sciences
    3536 Butte Campus Drive
    Oroville CA 95965-8399
    Office: (530) 895-2422
    Fax: (530) 895-2472



MTC-00013804

From: Scott Rosenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This article published on Salon.com on 1/16/02 represents my 
comments on the proposed antitrust settlement that I would like to 
submit for the record. Thank you!
    Scott Rosenberg
    managing editor,
    salon.com 415-645-9240
    [email protected]
    Chips ahoy
    AMD competes with Intel, and the public wins. The right 
Microsoft antitrust settlement can bring the same energy back to the 
software market.
    By Scott Rosenberg
    Jan. 16, 2002 ??? The personal computer industry may be in its 
worst slump in history, but you wouldn't know it by following the 
news from the processor wars. Over the past two years, Intel and AMD 
have unleashed an incredible competitive cycle in Silicon Valley. In 
case you missed it, last Week these two chip companies offered 
dueling releases of new flagship processors: Intel unveiled its 
fastest Pentium 4 yet, running at 2.2 gigahertz and built with a new 
.13 micron process that crams even more transistors into an even 
smaller space. AMD, extending the huge success and popularity of its 
Athlon line and the Athlon's most recent and powerful incarnation, 
Athlon XP, announced the XP 2000--a chip that actually runs at 1.67 
gigahertz but, third-party tests show, nearly keeps up with the 2.2 
ghz Pentium 4 in most tasks (and even surpasses it in some).
    What's going on here is simple: Good old-fashioned competition 
drives engineers to continue to work miracles. Intel, the market-
dominating behemoth, has always pushed new, improved products out 
the door faster--and dropped prices more readily--when it feels the 
breath of a credible competitor on its neck. For many years the 
competition was feeble, but that changed when AMD's Duron and Athlon 
chips began giving Intel a run for its money--and, for a time in 
2001, actually bested Intel for the fastest personal-computer chip 
title.
    Today, these two companies keep spurring each other on, and 
consumers win big. For most of us, that's all we need to know: 
Computers keep getting faster and cheaper. The details are of 
interest only to the legions

[[Page 25840]]

of hardware nuts, high-performance system geeks and chip-
overclocking fans who flock to the Web's hardware review sites. 
Right?
    Well, the gigahertz specs may indeed be only geek fodder, but 
the other details of the Intel-AMD rivalry should be of keen 
interest to a much bigger crowd. That's because the competitive heat 
driving the processor market puts the relative frigidity of another 
part of the computer business into bold relief. I refer, of course, 
to the business of designing personal-computer operating systems--a 
business that Microsoft has dominated for years and that, according 
to the confirmed verdict of our federal courts, it now monopolizes.
    What if Microsoft were challenged as strongly on its home turf 
as AMD is now challenging Intel? What innovations, improvements and 
price reductions would the public enjoy that it doesn't, today, 
thanks to the Microsoft monopoly? This is the big question that 
hangs over the continuing struggle to find a meaningful outcome to 
the endless Microsoft antitrust saga. And the AMD/Intel analogy is 
worth pursuing to try to find some answers.
    Microsoft and its supporters, of course, maintain that the 
monopoly label is misplaced. After all, can't you buy a Macintosh 
without buying Microsoft Windows? Can't you obtain a PC and fire it 
up with any of a dozen versions of Linux or other Unix-style 
operating systems? Sure you can--and each of those operating-system 
alternatives has its partisans. But for use by individuals on their 
personal desktops, Microsoft Windows holds the overwhelming market 
share--by nearly every estimate, over 90 percent. Is that simply 
because Windows is superior to the alternatives? There are certainly 
people who believe that; and, to be sure, with the release of 
Windows XP last year, Microsoft finally moved its flagship operating 
system off the aging and increasingly unstable code base it had 
inherited from its infancy and onto the relatively more reliable 
Windows NT/Windows 2000 core.
    But how much faster might Microsoft have achieved that 
improvement if it was racing a tough competitor? And how much more 
incentive might the company have to produce more secure, less virus-
vulnerable products today?
    The historical record is quite clear (and the antitrust trial 
record is just as clear): The central reason Windows has maintained 
and extended its market share over the years is not product 
superiority but a concept economists call ``lock-in.'' Once you have 
all your data and all your software applications on one operating 
system or ``platform,'' moving to a different one is painful -- it 
takes time and effort and money (as economists say, your ``switching 
cost'' is high). Over the years Microsoft has not had to push harder 
and faster to improve Windows because it knew that its customers 
were unlikely to make a fast switch to a competitor.
    Now, that picture would be very different if you could somehow 
reduce or eliminate those switching costs. What if competing 
operating systems could seamlessly and interchangeably run the same 
programs and utilize the same data files that Windows does?
    Here's where the Intel/AMD analogy comes in handy. These 
manufacturers compete to provide chips that can run the same 
computer programs--known loosely as ``x86 compatible'' code--and 
that retain compatibility with hardware like expansion boards and 
peripheral devices. If you needed to write different versions of 
each piece of software and manufacture different versions of each 
piece of accompanying hardware--one that would work with Intel's 
chips and one that would work with AMD's--the whole competitive 
market would disappear. The weaker player (presumably AMD) would 
vanish and--presto!--Intel would have a monopoly as tough as 
Microsoft's.
    This relatively level playing field in the x86-compatible 
processor business did not come about by sheer happenstance. The 
semiconductor industry is marked by a Byzantine pattern of patent 
cross-licensing agreements; they provide permanent employment for 
legions of lawyers, and laymen seek to understand them only at great 
peril. What's important about them, however, is not how they came 
about but that they work.
    Now that the federal courts are trying to figure out an 
effective remedy for Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly powers, the 
competition between Intel and AMD provides a valuable model. How 
would one go about enabling Microsoft's rivals to compete with it as 
effectively as AMD is competing with Intel?
    The key here is something known as the Windows API (or 
``applications programming interface'')--the set of instructions 
that Windows programs use to ``talk to'' the operating system. The 
Windows API has long been a murky issue: Microsoft has always 
provided some information to independent developers--it has to if 
third-party Windows programs are going to work. But Microsoft can 
and does muck around with the API, changing things that break 
competitors'' products, anytime it wants to. And rumors have long 
buzzed, without ever being nailed down, that Microsoft's own 
developers take advantage of so-called hidden APIs that non-
Microsoft coders can't use. The Justice Department's proposed 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft seems to demand that Microsoft 
do more to open up its APIs to competitors. But the fine print makes 
it clear that Microsoft could pretty much continue with business as 
usual. A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft 
to standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications (another key to Microsoft's 
monopoly ``lock-in'')--with the express goal of allowing competitors 
to build Windows software applications, and operating systems, that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field.
    Such a plan would require careful oversight and enforcement, 
since Microsoft could easily engage in all manner of foot- dragging. 
If Microsoft set out to be uncooperative, it could release the API 
information slowly, in deliberately confusing ways, or in a ``Good 
Soldier Svejk'' fashion -assiduously following the letter of the 
court's order while flagrantly violating its spirit. (There's 
precedent here: This is precisely how Microsoft behaved during the 
trial when it told the court that, sure, it would supply a version 
of Windows with Internet Explorer removed from its guts, but gee, 
sorry, then Windows wouldn't work.)
    Now, I can already hear the howls from the Microsoft corner that 
this plan is evil and un-American because it forces Microsoft to 
give up some of its intellectual property. Well, yes. Microsoft is 
in court as a repeat offender; the current antitrust suit, in which 
a federal district court and an appeals court have both affirmed 
that Microsoft is a monopoly and that it has abused its monopoly 
powers, arose out of the failure of a previous consent-decree 
settlement of an earlier antitrust case. At some point, having 
repeatedly violated the law, Microsoft needs to pay a price, or it 
will continue with its profitably anticompetitive ways.
    There's no reason to think the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement will work any better than the consent decree of last 
decade did. And financial penalties can hardly wound a company that 
is sitting on a cash hoard of tens of billions of dollars. But 
intellectual property--that's something Bill Gates and his team 
really care about. Requiring them to divulge some of it in order to 
restore competition in the software market might actually get them 
to change the way they operate. With Microsoft's APIs and file 
formats fully standardized, documented and published, other software 
vendors could compete fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust 
laws are supposed to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome 
but long unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as 
today's processor market is, by genuine competition.
    Scott Rosenberg
    managing editor/Senior VP Editorial Operations
    Salon.com [email protected]



MTC-00013805

From: R. P. Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over twenty years of computing experience, primarily within the 
DOS/Windows envronment--because I had very little choice otherwise--
has taught me that the real growth of Microsoft has been on the 
backs and over the protests of ``the little guy.'' The truth is, 
there were simply no alternatives to Microsoft, and in spite of the 
growing financial coffers of Microsoft, there has been a relentless 
cycle of upgrading expense that has finally grown to the point of 
absurdity.
    In 1987, I began a small computer consulting firm that 
eventually became a corporation. Our target vertical market, law 
enforcement records management and municipal accounting, was just 
coming into it's own (especially in small departments and 
municipalities). Usually, we would install Novell as the internal 
network. Experience proved that Novell was a company with 
substantial technical savvy and a commitment to client satisfaction. 
Novell was a company that had truly pioneered the

[[Page 25841]]

network opportunity, offering substantial benefits to those who were 
motivated to learn and market their cutting-edge technological 
products. In spite of the great declines in Novell's market 
position, primarily as a result of the predatory practices of 
Microsoft, it continues to be a world-leader in networking 
technology, driving technological advancement with products and 
features that Microsoft can only dream of having.
    We also utilized the fantastically powerful features of 
WordPerfect, and clients that persevered to learn the power of 
WordPerfect were never disappointed. Many of us were absolutely 
thrilled to hear that Novell had acquired WordPerfect, trusting that 
a knowledgeable market would recognise a true alternative to 
Microsoft's growing power in the marketplace. The great majority of 
problems we encountered in our installations were the result of the 
changing target of Microsoft, changes that I personally believe were 
a part of a vast corporate mindset in Microsoft--probably driven by 
the egos of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer and a few others--that 
intentionally stifled competition by constantly changing the rules 
of the game. Because these were corporate decisions, and the only 
products that could anticipate these changes were, in fact, 
Microsoft products, the die was cast.
    I have used Microsoft products since DOS version 2, and was an 
early user of Windows(tm). Because of so-called ``business 
compatibility issues,'' I abandoned Macintosh, and stored my 
Macintosh Plus in the closet, over 12 years ago; but have recently 
come back to the Macintosh environment. This decision was compelled 
by Microsoft's relentless push to control my personal computing 
life. I have been a savvy user of Microsoft products, but I learned 
long ago not to have any confidence in the ``security'' of any 
product Microsoft puts its hand to.
    The current security issues with Microsoft products are the 
logical outcome of a corporate mindset that has never been driven to 
technological excellence. I personally believe that Microsoft is a 
corporation that has never produced a single technical breakthrough. 
I don't believe the person lives who can point to a single 
innovation in Microsoft technology, software environment, network 
security--ANYTHING--that Microsoft did not obtain from the wisdom 
and efforts of others. To the contrary, it has blatantly robbed and 
unconscionably stolen, lifted, copied, or otherwise acquired the 
technical innovations of others, including Xerox, IBM, Apple, 
Novell, WordPerfect, dBase and a litany of others.
    Frankly, I was STUNNED that the court would even consider 
Microsoft's ridiculous offer of $1 Billion to buy its way into the 
one market where it does not have a majority standing. According, I 
was THRILLED to hear that Microsoft's stonewalling in negotiation 
forced a wise judge to throw out the entire offer.
    Microsoft needs to be hit where it hurts the most. Individual 
consumers on whom Microsoft has built its empire have funded 
Microsoft's growth through exorbitant fees and charges, even as 
alternate sources of product and services have fallen under the 
blows of Microsoft monopoly. There should be substantial fines, 
limited attorney's fees, specific and substantial refunds (including 
interest and penalties) to ``legal'' users of Microsoft products, 
substantial limitations on licensing requirements that unduly stifle 
competition and/or competitive choice by the consumer, and enough 
clout within those penalties to insure that these offenses will 
never happen again.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Royce P. Bell
    Email [email protected]



MTC-00013807

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I have been very annoyed by Microsoft for years. I could see, 
and many others also probably, that Microsoft was using bullying 
tactics with their software. I don't want to take away any credit 
from Bill Gates and his crew. Windows is a wonderful concept. 
Certainly a milestone in mankind's communication ability. But, they 
apparently tried to stifle competition. I remember when firms 
competed by striving to improve their product. Never resting on 
their laurels, but continuing to refine product.
    If Microsoft gets away with just a slap on the wrist by 
government, it will send the wrong message to other companies who 
might also try stonewalling authority. Don't let them laugh at us 
all the way to the bank. (As if they haven't done that already.)
    Harold G. Saltus
    West Palm Beach, Florida.



MTC-00013808

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly feel that it was Microsoft which led the Us into 
preeminence in the field of information and personal computing--the 
only field in which this country still leads. All the other 
companies have benefitted from this leadership. Costs for more 
advanced equipment and software are always relatively less for 
better and more. Microsoft leads and has led because it did better 
thought better and was there first. To punish innovation to me is 
suicidal. I am a tockholder in Microsoft because early on we saw its 
potential and we have been rewarded for our vision. Why should 
Microsoft be punished for its vision?



MTC-00013809

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a 73 year old consultant who has no affiliation to Microsoft 
I want this suit resolved fast. As a consumer my productivity has 
been enhanced enormously by Microsoft operating systems and 
applications and I want them to continue innovating. I do not know 
of a single consumer who has suffered through Micosoft's actions in 
the marketplace. This lawsuit should never have reached this stage. 
End it now!



MTC-00013810

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why would you want to continue going after one of the hallmark 
companies in the United States. From what I can tell not one 
consumer was dissatisfied just whining competitors that couldn't be 
creative enough with their strategies to win against Microsoft and a 
room full of state politicians that see the potential for another 
handout from a successful company with deep pockets. The Clinton 
administration wasted our tax dollars pursuing this case; don't do 
the same. Settle and move on. Our country has bigger problems that 
slapping the hands of Bill Gates.



MTC-00013811

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that it is time to give up this witch-hunt by the 
time this action is finally settled the issues in question will have 
long been decided or superceded by time technological advancements 
or even lack of interest. The DoJ and the various Attorneys-General 
should spend their time and OUR money on the pursuit of real 
criminals those whose crimes affect the truly innocent. After all 
who is truly hurt by having a computer that is easier to use?



MTC-00013812

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been good for the consumer. Its product line 
innovations and customer support are #1. I've in no way been hurt by 
Microsofts actions to the contrary I've been helped. No company I've 
delt with has been easier to contact and solve my problems. Please 
lighten up.
    Randy



MTC-00013813

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I believe the agreement reached between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft was in the best interest of us consumers. The 
judicial system should not be interfering in the software business. 
The market is more than capable to decide what it wants. I believe 
the whole trial was due to the complaining and whining of 
Microsoft's competitors. They should concentrate more on their 
business and let the Justice Department concentrate on more 
important matters. Thank you for a job well done
    Meena Shin



MTC-00013814

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25842]]

    I think you should just wrap the case up and move on to more 
important reviews like Enron. I believe the reason Microsoft was 
ever brought to trial was because its competitors didn't like that 
Microsoft is the Industry Leader and therefore should have the 
market lead on technology. I SAY CLOSE THE MICROSOFT CASE!!!



MTC-00013815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe it is time for the DOJ to end the Microsoft 
case. I can think of no single company who has contributed so much 
to our economy and growth. Microsoft through their innovative 
research has created literally thousands of jobs, created billions 
in tax revenues and will continue to help our economy grow. The 
proposed settlement agreed to by many politicians should be more 
than fair. Let us dwell upon the real problems facing us instead of 
trying to ruin a progressive innovative organization.
    Thank you!



MTC-00013816

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Microsoft settlement is very fair and that 
this whole antitrust matter with Microsoft should be resolved as 
expeditiously as possible. I believe that as one of the United 
States premier software and technology providers Microsoft has not 
injured any consumers and that in fact Microsoft continues to help 
and assist U.S. consumers on a daily basis. I utilize Microsoft 
products myself on a daily basis and I find them to be excellent 
products with a reasonable cost. I believe that the U.S. government 
should STOP harassing Microsoft as further legal actions against 
Microsoft hurts consumers and our U.S. economy.



MTC-00013817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We must support microsoft to become and stay a world company, 
otherwise other countries will be leading we become second in 
software like in the wireless industry; Germany, Japan, and Sweden 
are in front of us. Just install an oversight board and help 
Microsoft. Also require that Microsoft reinvests their profits in 
the USA.
    Best of luck,
    Werner Ament



MTC-00013818

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe in endorsing the Microsoft antitrust court settlement 
because I believe that it is a reasonable settlement in the public's 
interest. I believe that the U.S. government's action against 
Microsoft was frivolous and unnecessary in the first place. I 
believe that the government's actions against Microsoft were harmful 
to consumers and the U. S. economy. Continued governmental 
interference and action against Microsoft is wrong.



MTC-00013819

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement should end this waste of taxpayer money. Why 
discourage companies from being the best? That's what competition 
and the American way is all about. In 10 years if linux is the top 
seller and everyone wants their product will the government try to 
beat them down too? What if Bill Gates said he'd had all this crap 
he wanted and took his marbles and went home. . .  where would we be 
then? The govt would be begging him to come back when the world came 
to a halt. Think about it. They have a right to try to make the best 
product and then to market it and if the public likes it and buys it 
so be it. Enough is enough.



MTC-00013820

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From any viewpoint the settlement agreement with Microsoft seems 
fair and acceptable to the American public. It would appear that the 
motivations for the States to reject this agreement is based on 
other considerations not based on fairness and acceptability to the 
American people. Let's end this once and for all. Just how much 
money do the states think Microsoft can be extorted for?
    W.E.Sirvatka
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013821

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement. Microsoft needs to get on with 
business.



MTC-00013822

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone and help the economy. Settle this fairly 
now.



MTC-00013823

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a consumer I endorse the settlement terms so that this 
antitrust case can be ended. It is fair and reasonable. It does not 
favor Microsoft--it favors consumers such as myself. Let's get this 
matter over as soon as possible.
    Thank you.



MTC-00013824

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am opposed to continuation of the litigation against 
Microsoft. In my judgement it is a detriment to the stock market and 
Americans in general who rightfully enjoy the fruits of US 
technological leadership. I see this issue as satisfying the 
position oft heard these days that there are far too many lawyers; 
too many lawyers making too many laws and too many lawyers 
adjudicating our laws.
    Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.



MTC-00013825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft made computing so average people could use and benefit 
from it. Its time for the also ran to lay off. Let the complainers 
invent their own. Leave Microsoft alone.



MTC-00013826

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    IF IT WASN'T FOR BILL GATES AND WINDOWS I WOULDN'T HAVE A 
COMPUTER.



MTC-00013827

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not settle. Microsoft products are terrible because they have 
a monopoly. My system crashes at least 5 times per day. In a 
competitive situation this would never happen. Please don t settle 
with Microsoft giving one cent on a dollar settlement. We must have 
competition in this market because it is to important to your 
country.
    Thank you.



MTC-00013828

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the lawsuits against Microsoft are a joke! And I 
also believe that America should be run by Americans .If we don`t 
take America back, in ten years there is not going to be an America 
Land of the Free! Because if Bill Gates invented Microsoft and got 
rich then that is the American way right? America is not run by 
Americans It been taken over by the Jewish people! It seems that 
they don't want us Americans to make it in our own country.You can 
look it up if you don`t believe this. But the Jewish people own 
everything that makes money and I mean everything.We have got to 
wake up, people and take America back! The Internet is the only 
place that is left that has Free Speech. What you read and watch on 
TV is what they want you to see. The United Jewish American States 
has screwed Bill Gates out of his American Dream! I am sick of it!!!

[[Page 25843]]

    Sonthron#1



MTC-00013829

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't even know why I'm wasting my time doing this. But I feel 
we can't ignore Microsoft s activities. They are getting stronger, 
everyday.Current settlement isn't acceptable.It does nothing to 
actually hold Microsoft accountable for having been found guilty of 
being a predatory monopoly. Their motto is BEAT EM, BUST EM, THAT'S 
OUR CUSTOM. They are the Evil Empire. Look at their relationship 
with Apple. It was all a muze. He's afraid of AOL Time Warner. His 
NEW OS XP has made it impossible for their DSL/Cable service to 
operate on the system. They must be controlled.They have struck 
deals with Universities to supply software to students at 5.00 a 
disk. What a human gesture on the surface but you become addicted to 
using his product and when you leave school and have a FAMILY 
EVERYBODY is using his product because it's theirs why change etc. 
etc. we need more options and he buys them out. . Like Corel. Can't 
touch Lotus. its IBM's.It sucks, so does MS.



MTC-00013830

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    please finish this case that does not benefit anyone and 
taxpayer money is wasted that can be used for real needs. Microsoft 
is a corporation that innovates and creates new technology for the 
masses and me as consumer want this lawsuit settled. Microsoft did 
nothing wrong but innovate.
    Sincerely
    Fernando A. Echegaray
    Orlando FL.



MTC-00013831

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The effort put forth has resulted in an equitable settlement. I 
applaud the efforts of those involved. I certainly trust that we 
will continue to see inovation at low cost from our friends at 
Microsoft.



MTC-00013832

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Give-a-way settlement proposed by the US Justice 
Dept is bad for this country and bad for the industry. When I see 
the thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted 
at my client's IT shops because of Windows and windows related 
problems, there is little doubt that a competitive marketplace is 
badly needed.



MTC-00013833

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough!! You're wasting taxpayer money and the states 
AGs are getting ink for their political ambitions



MTC-00013834

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair and both sides made compromises. 
It's time to move on and stop wasting tax dollars on issues like 
this that amount to nothing more than other software companies using 
everybody's tax dollars to fight the competition. Over the past 3+ 
years the general feeling I get from friends family and even 
strangers is that this whole case was a waste of our tax dollars. I 
believe the events of Sept 11 proved we should have been using more 
tax dollars to stop terrorist organizations who want to kill 
consumers rather than harass US companies that provide goods and 
services, not to mention the large charitable contributions they 
give back to our consumers. I believe we are much better off today 
with Microsoft than we would have been without it. We need to leave 
all high tech companies alone and let them compete on their own 
merits. It's time for the DOJ to move on an deal with more important 
matters like investigating pharmaceutical and fuel companies. I 
guarantee you that most consumers would agree. We're tired of 
getting milked by these companies and their prices. It s nice to see 
we can now at least get cheaper prescription drugs from Canada (due 
to a recent constructive change in our US laws/regulations). Now 
when are we going to have more options for getting cheaper and/or 
alternate fuels?
    Thanks
    James Younkin.



MTC-00013835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DEAR MR.ASHCROFT:
    IT HAS HAS BEEN YEARS THAT THE ANTI-TRUST CASE CONCERNING 
MICROSOFT HAS GONE ON. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SETTLEMENT WHERE THE 
GOVERNMENT STAYS OUT OF COMPANIES COMPETING FOR BUSINESS. THE 
GOVERNMENT AT THIS TIME HAS SERIOUS PROBLEMS CONCERNING OUR SAFETY. 
LET'S PUT THIS CASE TO REST AND LET MICROSOFT GET ON WITH 
INNOVATIONS TO THEIR PRODUCTS. I IMPLORE YOU TO DROP THE CASE 
AGAINST MICROSOFT AND GET ON WITH FIGHTING TERRIORISM.
    LESLIE GREENBAUMN



MTC-00013836

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe the settlement is fair and reasonable and the 
compromise is in the best interest of everyone, especially the 
consumer! We believe that Microsoft got a bad deal from the 
government anyway



MTC-00013837

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is acceptable but the disturbing aspect is the 
manner in which the United States government goes after 
organizations that have built successful ventures. The apparent 
reason is to level the field and give everyone an equal opportunity. 
When considering the willingness to devote lives to ventures that 
others will not do or have the inability to accomplish meaningful 
goals, the result gives the appearance of a disincentive. Microsoft 
gave an opportunity to IBM and was rejected so they went their own 
way. Now a settlement has been developed which is already out of 
date because of the Microsoft competitors moving forward with their 
own agendas and developments. We are creating a system where the 
success of some is penalized because others have not the same 
ability or desire to advance their own programs. The public has 
always had the ability to purchase other equipment and chose not to.
    I own no Microsoft stock nor know anyone in the organization. 
However I am concerned with the system in place to destroy success 
which had it been in place years ago, would have prevented the 
United States from being the most successful and innovative nation 
in the world. Socialism has failed.



MTC-00013838

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice:
    1) No evidence consumer has suffered ANY injuries. Net cost of 
computing is lower every year.
    2) Strong evidence that motivation of States and Justice is 
competitor based and not consumer/citizen based.
    3) Strong evidence an uncoordinated fractured platform product 
will cause consumer extraordinary grief and confusion as many 
inferior conflicting products and vendors bombard them with 
nonsense. (Evidence AMD's new creative rating of their processor 
that does NOTHING but confuse).
    Microsoft having control of the industry they invented cannot 
produce a negative consumer impact. What do you REALLY want the 
consumer to deal with LINUX?
    Dom



MTC-00013839

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The anti-trust settlement for Microsoft's monopolistic practices 
is a travesty. Not only does it promote the products of this company 
but it undermines the hard earned place in the Educational arena 
that other companies have long invested in. Microsoft gets a free 
backdoor entry into this market where children will grow up using 
their products to continue to do so long into their adult lives, 
much as drug pushers seek to give freebies

[[Page 25844]]

to children to get them hooked. The settlement does NOTHING to stop 
or mediate the unscrupulous and monopolistic practices of Microsoft. 
Rather it REWARDS the company by allowing it to flood the poorest 
schools with their products (generating future revenues when these 
children grow up) and turns what should be a PR disaster into a PR 
dream (Microsoft helping out education the poor etc.) If Microsoft 
were at all concerned about these children they would GIVE the 
products to the schools with NO STRINGS attached. This is not 
altruism-- this is self-serving investment into the future growth of 
Microsoft Inc.
    I urge the settlement be scrapped or the ante upped 
substantially by requiring Microsoft to invest in the schools by 
putting COMPETITOR products into the classrooms and NO MICROSOFT 
PRODUCTS.



MTC-00013840

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have a hard time figuring what this great country is trying to 
do. Yes monopolies are supposed to be illegal and not allowed. You 
have done that with Ma Bell and now Microsoft, but everyday 
airlines, banks, corporations, etc. are buying each other up and 
eliminating competition calling it a good move for our country.
    This creates more specialization, less competition, and higher 
prices. If you are stopping one big domination, then why not start 
stopping the mergers so other monopolies can't get started.



MTC-00013841

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let Microsoft continue to engage in the free market system and 
we will all benefit from less intrusive governmental regulations !!



MTC-00013842

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is fair and that the harassment of 
Microsoft should be stopped.



MTC-00013843

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has become the successful company that it is today 
because of creative ideas, careful planning, attention to detail 
during development and testing of their products, and quality output 
far superior to its competitor's products and services. Even after 
the release of a product Microsoft continues to assist the consumer 
by providing continuous support and assistance through the Internet 
email and customer support. As a consumer of many of Microsoft's 
products and services in NO way have I been harmed in the manner the 
government's lawsuit states. The Democratic party and its notion 
that the government should be in control of everyone and their money 
is the real monopoly. I also feel this lawsuit is just the 
government's first step in an attempt to ultimately control the 
Internet. It's obvious the government and laws have not been able to 
keep pace with technology and this lawsuit is just a way for them to 
slow down the rapid advancement it can't keep up with.
    Microsoft should be free to continue to make their creative 
ideas become a reality. Ending this law suit will only aid in the 
swift recovery of our economy and that will benefit everyone, even 
Microsoft's competition.
    Lisa A. Harpold
    Overland Park, KS



MTC-00013844

From: Lester Housel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov','AG''
Date: 1/18/02  12:57pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft- settle this case quickly and fairly.
    The DOJ vs IBM case dragged out for 12 years with NO real 
conclusion other than draining taxpayers and corporate resources. 
The DOJ (9 states) vs Microsoft is another example of the same 
litigation in my opinion. The consumers and the investors ``suffer'' 
rather than receive protection. What this really does is slowdown 
product innovation and development in the technology industry. 
Competitors need to have better products at better prices, rather 
than use ``public'' funds to fight their battles for them.
    This case needs settled quickly and fairly so that our economy 
can return to more positive growth instead on continued uncertainty.
From:AG [SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent:Friday, January 18, 2002 12:05 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject:Microsoft
    Thank you for taking the time to e-mail the Florida Attorney 
General's Office regarding our involvement in the case of United 
States v. Microsoft Corp.
    As you know, several states and the Department of Justice 
settled this case late last year. Because of concerns that the 
settlement did not assure increased opportunities for competition 
and innovation, Florida and eight other states are currently 
continuing the litigation. Trial on potential remedies is scheduled 
to begin in March of this year.
    Without fair and open competition in the technology industry, 
America risks losing some of the innovation and imagination that 
made our nation the industrial and technological leader it is. For 
this reason, this office remains committed to ensuring that 
everything possible is done to achieve the utmost for consumers and 
for competition. Continuation of the Microsoft litigation at this 
time provides us with the opportunity to maintain that commitment to 
Florida's consumers.



MTC-00013845

From: Euel Ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:03pm
Subject: On the Microsoft settement.
    Sirs.
    After reviewing the facts of this case, and from my own opinions 
as one who has observed the effects of Microsoft's monopoly on the 
development and use of personal computers, I believe that the ends 
of not only justice, but also simple human decency, would be best 
served by giving the plaintiff the largest penalty allowed by law. I 
have many reasons for believing this, the chief one being that 
Microsoft's de facto monopoly on the IBM operating system has 
stifled development of competing systems and prevented higher 
quality systems from reaching the marketplace.
    Yours,
    E. E. Ball



MTC-00013846

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Phillip Ira Barnes. I live at 11460 Pearl St., West 
L.A. CA. 90064. My phone # is (H) 310-479-0258 (W) 310-394-7779 EX 
514. I saw A HREF=``http://salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/
competition/index.html''>this article/A> today and felt I needed to 
make my opinion known to you. I think that any punishment Microsoft 
gets will be nothing more than a slap on the hand. If I had any say 
in this process, Microsoft would be shut down and its assets sold 
off in auction. The worst criminals in history have been given the 
death penalty and I think Microsoft deserves no less. This is a 
company that has raped the IT industry and forced it to follow its 
will. Microsoft has become fat and happy taking the innovations of 
others and selling them as their own. This company has also plowed 
under anything that threatens its market share and dictated its 
terms to the OEMs like a king does to peasants.
    I know I am one voice in many, but I feel that many share my 
views. Microsoft's crimes are blatant, its punishment should be very 
harsh. Thank you for considering my point of view.
    Phillip Barnes



MTC-00013847

From: Christopher Martinez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed by Miscrosoft is a complete joke and 
undermines the laws of the U.S. How can a company that has been 
accused of anti-businees practices be even allowed to continue?? 
Microsoft MUST be stopped from repeating its offenses.
    By allowing Microsoft to get off easy by sending old computers 
and free software worth ``1 billion'' is a waste of time. Don't even 
waste the american citizens time if that is all you are going to do, 
it is a joke, a complete travesty of our judicial system. Would this 
have been considered if ma bell would have said, ``we're sorry, we 
will make it up to the U.S. by supplying all satellite, 
telecommunications for the U.S.''???? Absolutely NOT!
    Microsoft must be punished and made SURE that it cannot do such 
practices again! (i.e. look at the new xp operating system and the 
.net initiative). I propose a breakup and restructuring as the ONLY 
viable alternative.

[[Page 25845]]

    ``I have a dream. . .  of little Macintosh computers. . .  
playing side by side with little Windows computers. . .  and little 
windows computers. . .  playing side by side with little Linux 
computers. . . ''
--paraphrased from MLK.
    christopher martinez
    [email protected]
    (303) 285-3480 ext. 8096--voicemail/fax



MTC-00013848

From: Alan Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is sent regarding my opinion on the Microsoft (MS) 
anti-trust settlement. The settlement seems fair and reasonable, and 
I would like to see the dispute settled. MS has been a great 
stimulus for the advancement of technology and played a major role 
in the bull market of the 90s, thus the sooner the dispute is 
settled, the better!
    MS has agreed to: (1) document and disclose the code of the 
interfaces built into Windows; (2) make it easier to promote non-MS 
software within its operating system; (3) license its operating 
system products to large computer makers at uniform rates.
    MS has extended this offer to reach a final settlement that will 
help stimulate the economy and be a continued boon to the computer 
industry.
    Thanks for your attention to this and your support in ending 
this litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Alan N. Taylor,
    649 Goodwin Drive,
    Richardson, Texas 75081



MTC-00013849

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]@ine. . . 
Date: 1/18/02  1:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It appears to us that the settlement offered by Microsoft is a 
fair & just offer. We are of the opinion that ever since the 
government has attacked Microsoft, the economy & the financial 
markets have gone down hill. THIS HAS GOT TO END.
    Sincerely:
    Robert J Chelini& Clara K. Chelini



MTC-00013850

From: Donald Vladeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please get this matter settled. All the delay is hurting 
everyone and the economy.
    Donald L. Vladeff



MTC-00013851

From: Walt Pennington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is deficient in future prevention of monopolistic 
behavior and in failure to impose a financial penalty for past 
conduct.
    Microsoft is a determined monopolist with a history of abusing 
its monopoly power for financial benefit. Microsoft's suffocation of 
new technologies by its tying practices, and it failure to integrate 
with new competing products should be penalized financially.
    Microsoft should pay a fine in excess of $500,000,000 or one in 
quality to that of price fixer Archer Daniels Midland. Profit 
seeking monopolists rarely renounce abusive desires, but removing 
financial incentives from abusive behavior will encourage future 
restraint from abusive monopolistic practices.
    Microsoft Windows OS and Microsoft software must be open to 
integration with competing operating systems and software. Microsoft 
must allow integration with components such as those from 
competitors Apple/Mac and Gnu/Linux. Prohibit Microsoft's retailer 
mandate to charge for Windows OS even if Windows OS is not installed 
on the computer.
    Windows OS, Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer must be 
separate components, and cannot be integrated. If an end user wishes 
to use these, it should have the option to add, but middleware such 
as Opera and Netscape have the same access to integration with 
Windows OS as Microsoft.
    All Microsoft applications must be open to being configured for 
use on Apple/Mac and Linux.
    Walt Pennington
    San Diego, CA
    619-696-5050



MTC-00013852

From: Chris Averkiou
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The pending antitrust case against Microsoft continues to drag 
on to the detriment of consumers and the economy as a whole. It is 
in the national interest to settle this case. All parties had their 
day in court and the DC Circuit has ruled. Next case!
    Yours,
    Chris Averkiou



MTC-00013853

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:15pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    AGREE THAT MS CASES SHOULD BE SETTLED ASAP. SETTLEMENT IS FOR 
THE GOOD OF ALL CONCERNED & PLEASE END ALL LIGITATION.
    JOSEPH J. FERROVECCHIO
    24 HADDONFIELD RD.
    SHORT HILLS, NJ 07078
    [email protected]
    FAX: 1-973-564-8133



MTC-00013854

From: Thos Lydon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to express my position on the company recently 
found guilty of exercising monopolistic powers in the market 
determining the punishment that is going to be applied as 
consequence.
    If that sentence sounds odd to you at the Department of Justice, 
it sounds that way because it is. It is almost as odd that this is 
exactly what Microsoft is being permitted to do by the Department of 
Justice.
    Microsoft exercised its position and levered actions that denied 
others market psoition for only one purpose, to be dominate and to 
be able to dictate to other companies what they will or will not do. 
It affected offered product lines.
    The settlement need be consequencial not favorable. Microsoft 
should either be broken up or ordered to refund all registered 
software users the money that was overcharge for software riddled 
with faulty code. If Microsoft is going to permitted into another 
sector of the market it should have to use its money to purchase it 
competitor's products instead of being allowed to use its own. .
    The United States Department of Justice's role in this is on 
behalf of the consumer. If you are to maintain confidence with your 
clients, then ensure that the settlement reached in the case puts 
the consumer in the position of advantage over Microsoft. This 
company has willfully acted to hindered the innovation of its 
competitors and need have the advantage gained by these acts 
destroyed.
    Microsoft is even bold enough to imply that the computer 
industry is dependent on the company. This only seals the guilty 
charge as accurate. Once the company is knocked back a knotch or 
two(preferrably two big knotches) the industry will rocket with 
innovation because of being relieved of the pressure applied to it 
to date by Microsoft.
    Your mission is to at this time apply consequence, not allow 
Microsoft to determine what its punishment should be. Fail in this 
and you will fail in your mission. The Department of Justice is not 
paid to fail. As your client, I am not satisified with the 
department performance to date.



MTC-00013855

From: John Gagon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:23pm
Subject: Anti-trust.
    I am a software developer and competition with Microsoft in the 
high markets of office products and internet browsing products is 
extremely difficult. Not only did it endanger companies like Sun and 
Netscape (which it definitely has). It has also taken control of all 
the standards and bent the standards to it's own whims. I'm forced 
to submit resume's with their expensive word processing software 
because many state run job agencies require it. High percentages of 
websites comply only with Microsoft's type of HTML.
    I feel that Microsoft has harmed and not helped our economy by 
stifling entrepreneurship. Microsoft now wants to increase 
marketshare of its operating system by making hardware specs that 
meet their encryption so that eventually, you cannot use other 
operating systems on PC hardware. This violates the injunction not 
to engage in additional monopolistic practices.

[[Page 25846]]

    I started out by liking Microsoft when it competed with IBM's 
DOS. But ever since it has ousted IBM out of OS/2. I've begun to 
feel disgusted with their business practices and abuse of it's 
marketshare leading to inferior products. This ruling should 
consider what Microsoft will do in the future by seeing what they 
have done in the past.
    In my opinion, Microsoft and the public would best benefit if 
Microsoft were split and sold to investors and fined for stealing 
intellectual property using the loopholes of the system and allowing 
our privacy to be comprimised. Any part of Microsoft software that 
has potential for compromising our privacy should be opened to the 
public.
    John



MTC-00013856

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ,
    This is regarding the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I think it 
is a great thing that you are willing to hear from the public, and 
it shows that you are very open minded about the whole thing.
    I personally feel that Microsoft has no other instinct than to 
grow and assimilate any kind of technology it can legally or not, 
get it's hands on. They mess with it and try to sell an inferior 
version of it to the public. People buy it because they have an 
instinct to try to conform to a standard. A standard that I might 
add was created only because they manipulated the market to conform 
to their needs. If you recall the book ``1984'', you will see how 
similar Microsoft is to ``Big Brother''. They tell you what you 
need, what you can use, and say to hell with privacy rights in the 
case of their new operating system ``Windows XP'', because of the 
fact that they have access to your computer at any time, and that is 
just wrong.
    I feel the only solution to this personal threght is to finally 
shut them down and pass a new ``Big Brother'' amendment that says no 
company can grow to such an extent as to have more control over the 
public than the national government.
    I urge and plead that you take the nessary steps to make sure 
this monopoly is shut down and not allowed to happen again in 
another form.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Wiedower



MTC-00013857

From: Lowell Gaughan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Lets get on with it ! Microsoft has done everything that has 
been wanted by the DOJ, and their offer of settlement to the states 
is more than admirable. Their business practices are above average 
by far. Settle this group of hearings,and spend some time finding 
out how many Attorneys General are up to their hips with Enron.
    Let's not keep trying to knock the king off the hill,and thank 
them for all the good they have done and are continuing to do.If it 
were not for Bill Gates and Paul Allen I probably would not be 
sending you this message.
    Thank you.



MTC-00013858

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:46pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT IS A GOOD THING FOR ALL CONCERNED & PLEASE 
STOP/END ALL LITIGATION.
    EMILIA V. FERROVECCHIO
    E-MAIL: [email protected]
    FAX: 1-973-564-8133



MTC-00013859

From: Dan Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I looked at the proposed settlement and don't see the 
requirement for Microsoft to make restitution, however, since I've 
read about this in the media, I'll make comments anyway. I am 
opposed to any settlement with Microsoft which has Microsoft 
donating software to schools. This would lead to a further intrusion 
of Microsoft into the schools, at the expense of both Apple Computer 
and vendors of educational software for the PC which make much 
higher quality software.
    Dan Allison
    [email protected]
    775-741-5595 C
    PO Box 3644,
    Carson City NV 89702-3644
    home.earthlink.net/allisondan/
    PGP Public Key on ldap://certserver.pgp.com>



MTC-00013860

From: Allen Appell, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone and let the free market decide what 
products should be produced. Government intervention in this case 
only serves to support uncompetitive competitors and adds 
substantial cost to consumers and the economy as a whole.
    Thank you,
    Allen L. Appell, Ph.D.
    Professor of Marketing
    San Francisco State University
    1600 Holloway Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94132
    Email: [email protected]
    Web Page: http://userwww.sfsu.edu/aappell/



MTC-00013861

From: elizabeth schlegel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:06pm
Subject: antitrust settlement
    Attention,
    I am for the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. This email is to 
inform you of my position regarding this issue.
    Elizabeth Schlegel



MTC-00013862

From: Rocco Bruno
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement represents everything that is 
wrong in today's economy. Here is a company that destroyed so many 
companies along the way that I lost count. The settlement was to 
send a message that monopolistic practices in a competitive free 
market system are wrong. Instead the settlement for all intent and 
purposes proposes that we hand over the public school computer 
business to Microsoft, an area that has been traditionally the 
strong hold of Apple. Apple didn't get it handed to them, they 
earned it by working hard over the last 20 years.
    The settlement should be simple. Strip Microsoft of half it's 
wealth and put that x amount of billions in a software/hardware 
grant system that companies could then apply for. I for one can't 
even imagine where we could be in the next 5--10 years. Above all 
else companies need to feel free to develop products without 
Microsoft looking over there collective shoulders.
    Sincerely,
    Rocco



MTC-00013863

From: Matt Sauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to briefly voice my support for the opening of the 
Windows API as part of any settlement reached in the Microsoft case. 
As a longtime user of BeOS, it is clear to me that better operating 
systems exist, but are doomed to failure due to the monopoly 
Microsoft enjoys and their resultant user base that is loathe to try 
something new for reasons of compatibility. I also hope that the 
bootloader agreement is abolished and no loophole is left for MSoft 
to exploit re: hardware manufacturers and bundling new operating 
systems.
    Thanks.
    Matt Sauer
    4522 Locust Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19139



MTC-00013864

From: Nancy Maxwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    When the suit was brought against Microsoft the Stock Market 
fell. Every time a ruling against Microsoft is made the Stock Market 
falls. Every time a ruling is in favorer of Microsoft the Stock 
Market rises. I am a market investor and a user of Microsoft 
Products. I do not feel that I was over charged for any software 
program I bought. I also use the Netscape browser, but like Internet 
Explore better as an investor and software user I urge you to settle 
the suite as soon as possible. You are using my tax dollars to fight 
this suit and I am not happy about this. I will certainly remember 
this when election time comes. As for any wrong doing that may or 
may not have happened I do not believe that the public was in anyway 
hurt but the cost of your law suit has cost the public. If someone 
builds a better product people will buy it. Let the settlement stand 
as is and end this.

[[Page 25847]]

    Thank you
    Nancy Maxwell



MTC-00013865

From: Sean Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    My name is Sean Holt-Carden. I am an open-source (http://
www.opensource.org) software developer. Microsoft ``claims'' that 
they are the main contributors to Computer advancements made in the 
past couple of years. . . when in all actuality they are the main 
contributors to holding back the computer industry. The main reason 
for this is they are closed-source. They barely release any source 
code for their new, what they call, ``technologies and software''.
    Then Microsoft goes as far as not supporting old hardware in 
order to ``boost the computer sales industry''. What about the 
people who can't afford to buy a new computer every year? They have 
to be left in the ``dark'' because Microsoft wants to ``boost'' the 
industry? That's not very fair in my opinion, and companies should 
NOT be allowed to make such actions. Yes, you can say the people who 
can't afford new computers don't have to buy the newest versions of 
Microsoft Windows, but then all of the software released by 
Microsoft REQUIRES the newest version of Windows. If these people 
don't have the newest version, they simply cannot use the newest 
software.
    In my opinion SOMEBODY needs to step in here and make things 
right. If Microsoft is allowed to get away with all the bull they 
are pulling when will it stop? The longer they get away with it, the 
worse it is going to get. I read over, briefly, the ``final 
judgement'' which I found a link for on the Sun website (http://
java.sun.com). In essence, this ``final judgement'' won't do 
anything except for spending tax-payers money uselessly. There are 
WAY too many loopholes in this agreement that, we all know, 
Microsoft will exploit and take advantage of. This agreement needs 
to be written stronger and Microsoft needs to be given heftier 
penalties in the occurrence that they violate said agreement. Also, 
the ``Technical committee'' must be knowledgeable of what the 
source-code they look at actually means, and they must be unbiased 
in this whole situation. If they aren't knowledgeable in this 
manner, it's pointless to appoint such a committee to monitor 
Microsoft seeing they don't know what they're looking at. This would 
also be a waste of tax-payers money.
    Thank you for your time,
    Sean Holt-Carden
    P.S. If you have any questions or comments on this e-mail, 
please feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].



MTC-00013866

From: John Gilbert (CPR)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
10133 Hanover Glen Road
Charlotte, NC 28210-7725
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have closely followed the federal government's antitrust case 
against Microsoft for a long time. Microsoft is not a monopoly, but 
competitors who cannot compete with Microsoft in this highly 
innovative market have attacked them aggressively. This settlement 
is fair and will give the computer/software industry the boost it 
greatly needs.
    I feel Microsoft is improving its business practices by allowing 
competitors and partnering software developers access to some of the 
Windows operating system source code. It also agreed to not 
retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows.
    Microsoft must be permitted to implement these new business 
practices. Far too much time and resources have been spent proving 
Microsoft is operating as a monopoly. Its time to put an end to Big 
Brother is watching, and let Microsoft get back to business with the 
settlement terms.
    Sincerely,
    John Gilbert



MTC-00013867

From: Austin Conger (Borders Online)
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It has been proven that Microsoft (MS) is a monopoly! And as 
such should be dismantled according to the Sherman Act. We as 
consumers deserve to have a greater selection and choice in 
commercially supported software. This settlement has failed to 
address the bundling of software into the OS by MS, effectively 
making choices for the consumer. This is not freedom of choice! This 
is NOT freedom!
    With Microsoft being the only choice for consumer based OSs, we 
are locked into all bugs and security risks related to this 
monopoly!
    I am against the leniency of this settlement.



MTC-00013868

From: Sterling Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft proposed settlement is ludicrous. I guess that 
next we will be hearing how as a penalty for bank robbers, we will 
give them jobs as Brinks armored car drivers. You can't give them 
more market share for their unlawful actions. Also, we cannot let 
them use slippery accounting tricks ( giving away overpriced 
software) to pay a penalty for their misdeeds. I'm sure Standard 
Oil, or Bell Telephone would have loved these deals. . .  Please, 
this was supposed to put an end to these unfair practices not 
encourage them.
    Sterling Johnson
    Castroville, Texas



MTC-00013869

From: Jason Muxlow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The simple fact that I am typing this E-mail on a Windows 
machine and I am 99% certain that you are reading it on a Windows 
machine should be enough to settle this case in any court in the 
land.
    Monopolies can't be allowed to prosper.
    Jason Muxlow--Multimedia Designer
    L90--The Online Media & Direct Marketing Experts
    [V] 312 726-3893 x227
    [F] 312 726-3894
    http://www.l90.com/csg> http://www.L90.com/csg
    Creative Services Group
    http://www.l90.com/csg> http://www.l90.com/csg



MTC-00013870

From: Matthew McCrady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a long-time Macintosh proponent, I have for a long time felt 
the sting of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS market. Every time I go 
into Wal-Mart and find not a single application available for my 
Macs, I think about the way in which Microsoft has undermined 
competition in all areas of the computer software industry.
    That's why I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
Corporation is a terrible penalty for a company so ruthless as 
Microsoft. Allowing Microsoft to get off the hook by buying 
refurbished computers and software for under funded school systems 
is like punishing a serial child molester by sentencing him to 
community service in a day-care center. That comparison may be a bit 
crude, but nonetheless, the proposed settlement would simply allow 
Microsoft to gain a stronger foothold in the one market in which it 
has traditionally not been dominant. No wonder Apple opposes the 
settlement so heartily. It would effectively destroy Apple's base 
and lay to rest any notion that there is real competition in the 
computer software industry.
    I hope the government thinks again before it settles with 
Microsoft for such a paltry and Pyrrhic victory.
    Matt McCrady
    Lynn and Matt McCrady
    P.O. Box 272
    Warm Springs, VA 24484
    [email protected]
    (540) 839-2866



MTC-00013871

From: Damien Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    The proposed settlement by Microsoft Corp. is a travesty. 
Microsoft is obviously a monopoly, with over 90% of the consumer and 
business personal computer operating system market, and with MS Word 
used by almost every office or department at schools and businesses. 
Windows, like Word, is a sub-standard piece of software: clumsy, 
unstable and blatantly incompatible with other manufacturer's 
software.

[[Page 25848]]

    And what of MS's innovation? Stealing the modern GUI from Apple, 
and failing to even improve on it. Stealing the web browser from 
Netscape, and failing to improve on it for nearly 5 years (Netscape 
4.7 from 1996 is a good as MS's Explorer from 2000). Hotmail, bought 
from another party and tinkered with until it has become bloated, 
slow and borderline unusable compared to the way it was three years 
ago? Have you ever seen the pathetic power management Windows 
provides for notebook computers?
    Do not allow MS to continue its tyrannical rule of the personal 
computer market. Aside from stifling innovation by forcing the rest 
of the industry to play it's game, (such as the whole Java fiasco!) 
and keeping prices high, (forcing users to have a P800 processor to 
run a file display system, er, OS, that is essentially the same as 
it was five years ago) , it forces users to play the Microsoft game. 
Why is it that instead of an open text standard (along the lines of 
HTML), MS Word documents have become the de facto document exchange 
format, despite the high processor power demands of any recent 
version, the clumsy user interface, and oddities of display and font 
requirements on different computers and on different operating 
systems? The answer is simple: Microsoft is a monopoly, and uses 
it's monopolist's power to force the market to buy it's products, 
rather than let the market decide. You are in a position to prevent 
this situation from contiuing, and preserve what little competition 
that exists in the computer market today. DO NOT let MS flood the 
educational system with cheap junk that costs them nothing to 
produce, and which they can count at full value in the settlement by 
tricks of accounting. By all rights, Microsoft should be billed 
every time a Windows licence is given away for free, as they benefit 
nearly as much from users running Windows without paying for it as 
they do if the user were to pay for their copy.
    Act in the public interest, the interest of technological 
progress, the interests of the free market, and NOT in the interests 
of BIll Gates or MIcrosoft. By the way, Gates himself should be held 
responsible for the actions of his company: the limited liability of 
corporate executives is a relatively novel concept, and should not 
be taken as the gospel that it has been in the past 90 years or so. 
Deal the with the real problems, not just the current symptoms.
    Regards,
    Damien Fox
    [email protected]



MTC-00013872

From: Linda Roos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dept Of Justice:
    I have worked in the technology industry for about twenty years 
now, and I've never felt that Microsoft has done anything wrong. 
Microsoft's products have been very useful to me. I could have used 
some of Sun's or Oracle's products but they didn't meet my 
standards. America's economy was built on competition, not lobbying 
efforts. Sun and Oracle are trying to play catch-up with Microsoft 
by pulling weight and encouraging legislators to file suit against 
Microsoft. That is wrong. Microsoft has hurt no one but competitors, 
there have been no individuals affected by this. We as consumers 
have benefited. The government should not hamper good technology.
    In the 90's I worked for a software company that lost out to 
competitors because they knew the market better than us. That's the 
nature of competition. Yes we whined but we didn't file frivolous 
lawsuits.
    It is hard to imagine what the future will bring in computer 
software and hardware. But it scares me if the government is going 
to investigate complaints brought on by competitors. Free 
Enterprise. Who's next after Microsoft????
    For the sake of the economy please end this foolishness now.
    --Linda Roos



MTC-00013873

From: Robert L Wolpert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:17pm
Subject: MS Antitrust Settlement Concerns
    Dep't of Justice,
    I'm a statistician and mathematician, for many years a user of a 
variety of computers in my work, recreation, and personal life. I am 
writing in opposition to the proposed settlement of the US DOJ 
antitrust suit with MicroSoft.
    For years the MicroSoft monopolies on desktop operating systems 
and office productivity software have perpetuated each other--
competing operating systems (OS/2, BeOS, Netware, DR-DOS, Unix) 
cannot gain more than a trivial market share because Microsoft 
constructs its office productivity software NOT to run on the 
competing platforms (this was especially clear with OS/2); meanwhile 
competing desktop applications (Netware, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, 
etc) cannot gain more than a trivial market share because Microsoft 
conceals and changes their OS programming interfaces (API's) to give 
their own products an advantage (the MS slogan of the 70's when 
updating their OS was ``The job's not done ``til Lotus won't run''). 
The resulting lack of competition has hurt American research 
productivity, American commerce, and all of us who would benefit 
from cheaper, more secure, and more capable computing platforms. 
Penfield's structural remedy addresses the underlying problem--if 
the OS and App portions of Microsoft were separate, then it would be 
in the Apps portion's (and its stockholders') interest to port the 
apps to competing OS's, and it would be in the OS portion's (and its 
stockholders') interest to support ALL app vendors on their 
platform. In fact I would expect this would make both portions 
stronger, again benefiting their stockholders, while simultaneously 
opening the market to competition for the first time in two decades.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Robert Wolpert
    Professor, Duke University
    [email protected]>



MTC-00013874

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I offer here my comments, in accordance with Tunney Act 
provisions, related to the proposed settlement between the 
government and Microsoft. The government has chosen to prosecute 
this case in very narrow terms that do not do justice to the weight 
and strength of Microsoft's monopoly. The public interest is not 
served by such self-imposed limits, and the narrow measures provided 
in the proposed settlement. This case should be used as a vehicle to 
address the Microsoft monopoly in toto. Much of the proposed remedy 
consists of offering choice to the OEMs and consumers. While ending 
excessively restrictive licensing terms is a worthy step, this does 
nothing in practical terms to diminish the monopoly power wielded by 
Microsoft in the marketplace. In order to truly remedy monopoly 
abuse, there must be genuine punitive measures imposed upon 
Microsoft.
    Another deficiency of the proposed settlement is the absence of 
a bar to future anticompetitive behavior. In the past, Microsoft has 
often dealt with perceived competitive threats not only by raising 
restrictive middleware barriers, but also by buying competing 
technologies, products, or companies outright. To prevent continued 
abusive behavior and the expansion of Microsoft's monopoly power in 
the marketplace, Microsoft should be barred from acquiring ownership 
positions in competing companies, and from purchasing software 
products and technologies from other companies.
    Others, such as consumer advocate Ralph Nader, have made note of 
the impropriety of Microsoft's sizable cash position. The liquid 
assets of Microsoft exceed the total market capitalization and 
assets of many of Microsoft's competitors in the software 
marketplace. This capacity to buy any company or product which can 
be seen as a threat or strategic asset hangs as a threat over the 
industry. As a punitive measure, the government should seek to take 
no less than half of Microsoft's cash and short-term investments as 
a fine for anticompetitive actions.
    In order to minimize government intrusion in the software 
industry and the burdens imposed by constant oversight, a structural 
remedy is likely the most expedient option, and possibly the one 
which offers the most long-term assurance of market protection.
    It makes sense to split Microsoft into separate companies, 
although perhaps not along the lines proposed by the district court 
initially. Logically, there is one unit responsible for operating 
systems, another for software applications, one for internet 
products and services, and other products. It would seem to make 
sense to make separate companies for each of those product areas, 
barring each from most contact with the others for a period of some 
years.
    Without such a structural remedy, there is a need for 
substantial procedural remedies and fines, more so than provided by 
the proposed settlement. There are many activities which companies 
may engage in that take greater significance when executed

[[Page 25849]]

by a monopolist. The government should recognize this fact, and 
place more severe behavioral restrictions on Microsoft.
    Disclosure statement: I own no stock in any software or 
computer-related company, nor have I ever been in the employ of such 
a company.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Heller
    2960 Fox Lair Dr.
    Woodbridge VA 22191
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013875

From: Peter Ahking
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:43pm
Subject: microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the settlement agreed upon by Microsoft and the 
DOJ is fair. I would urge you to proceed with the settlement. As a 
user of Microsoft's suits of products, I believe that Microsoft has 
brought unity and standardization to the software industry and 
should be applauded for its endeavors. I believe that the settlement 
should be accepted by the DOJ.
    Regards,
    Peter Ahking



MTC-00013876

From: Benjamin Horst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Poughkeepsie, NY
18 January, 2002
    As a professional consultant working in the computing industry, 
I feel it is not only an opportunity, but also a responsibility, for 
me to submit the following comments regarding the proposed 
settlement. It is clear in my years of experience that Microsoft's 
monopoly has had adverse effects on the industry and has harmed its 
competitors, customers and even its own business partners. The 
current settlement's purpose, is, of course, to restrain Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct and remedy the effects of its past unlawful 
conduct. However, I do not feel it achieves these two goals.
    The current settlement would not punish Microsoft, but could 
actually advance its interests and provide the company with a 
``governmental green-light'' to continue its abusive practices. 
Please insist that the settlement is not acceptable unless it also 
includes the following: the complete un-bundling of Microsoft's 
products from its base operating system, with those products 
distributed separately or as extra-cost options; and the complete 
opening of the specifications for all Microsoft document file 
formats, APIs, and networking protocols for now and forever.
    With Microsoft's market position, it is capable of and seems to 
be working toward seizure of de facto control of the internet. There 
is no competitor nor group of competitors that could prevent it from 
taking this action, just as there was no free market action that 
could have prevented its seizure of the browser market from 
Netscape.
    The only recourse is for a strong government action that would 
both punish the company for its past law-breaking and make it 
impossible to commit further illegal acts. Please reject the 
proposed settlement and accept none that do not fully address all 
facets of Microsoft's monopoly abuses.
    Thank you,
    Benjamin Horst,
    GIS & Web Manager,
    The Chazen Companies



MTC-00013877

From: Todd Main
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While it is no surprise to me that the US position on the 
Microsoft anti-trust case softened dramatically with the new 
Presidency, I feel strongly that any settlement short of splitting 
Microsoft will have little or no effect on Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices. Without splitting the operating system from 
the applications, Microsoft will continue to take advantage of its 
monopoly of the operating system market to crush its competitors in 
the applications and internet markets. Do you think that msn.com has 
grown so much do to its high quality? Think again. When users buy a 
new PC, MSN is their default home page on the Microsoft browser. 
Since Internet Explorer is already installed with the OS, most users 
don't bother to download a competitor's browser. This has given 
Microsoft an unfair advantage in the browser market, which they are 
turning into an unfair advantage in the ISP and Internet portal 
markets. This type of behavior will continue as long as Microsoft 
can bundle its applications and services with its OS.
    Regards,
    Todd Main
    Boulder, Colorado



MTC-00013878

From: Claude D'Amour
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Claude D'Amour
13116 47 th place west
mukilteo, wa 98275
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Claude D'Amour



MTC-00013879

From: Rachel Gregory
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rachel Gregory
3306 Kinkaid
Dallas, TX 75220-1625
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rachel Gregory



MTC-00013880

From: Kari Carroll
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kari Carroll
2595 Darlington Ct., S.E.
Conyers, GA 30013
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust 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 25850]]

serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high 
time for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to 
be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kari Carroll



MTC-00013881

From: Sharon Rogowski
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Rogowski
POB 827
Crystal Lake, IL 60039-0827
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Rogowski



MTC-00013882

From: Jack Broaddus
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack Broaddus
7341 Glendora Ave.
Dallas, TX 75230
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Broaddus



MTC-00013883

From: Jay Noonkester
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jay Noonkester
3634 Willis Gap Rd
Ararat, Va 24053
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 W Noonkester



MTC-00013884

From: Joyce Takei
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Takei
5065 Spruce Bluff Drive
Atlanta, GA 30350-1000
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Takei



MTC-00013885

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    I am a consumer of Microsoft products and I have not been hurt 
by them. In fact, I benefit from their products. It was so foolish 
not to let them help disadvantaged schools. Why don't you quit 
wasting your time with Microsoft. You are obsessive-compulsive. I 
think it is more important that you go after Wal-Mart. They have 
caused untold damage to small businesses and communities. I think 
that you are very shortsided and narrow-minded.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25851]]

    Michael Pollack
    1720 S. Avenue L
    Portales, NM 88130-7032



MTC-00013886

From: Nanette Spatz
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nanette Spatz
16475 Dallas Parkway
Addison, TX 75001
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers dollars, was a nuisance 
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies. Thank you for this 
opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Nanette Spatz



MTC-00013887

From: Joseph Van Deweghe
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Van Deweghe
5715 Mt. Maria Rd.
Hubbard Lake, MI 49747-9620
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers dollars, was a nuisance 
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Van Deweghe



MTC-00013888

From: Charles B. Lovell
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles B. Lovell
2400 Tuckaho Rd
Louisville , KY 40207
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers dollars, was a nuisance 
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 B. Lovell



MTC-00013889

From: Nick Johnston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  3:59pm
Subject: Hello
    BILL GATES IS THE ANTICHRIST!!!! DIE!!! MICROSOFT, DIE!!! 
MACINTOSH IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!!



MTC-00013890

From: Jon Weygandt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justices,
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not 
go far enough to stop a monopoly. I would like to add my vote 
against the acceptance of the proposed settlement, and suggest 
stronger sanctions against Microsoft. I have been a software 
developer for 20 years and am currently the CTO and co-founder of 
Annexient, Inc. . I have worked for many different companies, 
including PTC who develops applications that run on many different 
platforms.
    I believe that we are currently in a ``death spiral'' with 
Microsoft. That is, the more market share Microsoft has, the more 
likely choices are made in Microsoft's favor, due entirely to their 
market size, thus providing positive feedback to the cycle.
    As a developer and CTO I have witnessed and made these 
decisions. One could say it is supply and demand. For the smaller 
companies it is, but that is because Microsoft is almost all the 
market there is.
    When a company wants to make another choice, it can be very 
difficult. We recently had a major customer request that we support 
the Macintosh. In doing so, it became apparent the significant 
discrepancy in development products between Microsoft and Apple, 
much of which I believe is due to decisions similar to the ones 
described above.
    I only hope it is not too late to stop the total domination of 
Microsoft on the software industry, and recommend that the proposed 
settlement be rejected, and more severe measures be taken against 
Microsoft.
    Jon Weygandt
    CTO/Founder
    Annexient Inc.



MTC-00013891

From: Annie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:08pm
Subject: blind with rage
    to the microsoft anti trust committee:
    i cannot proffer any constructive comments on the subject of 
microsoft at this time other than to say all thoughts of that 
corporation causes me to become blind with rage. they are 
terrorists: evil, greedy, & soul-sucking . . . should i send them an 
invoice for 1,000+ hours @ $70 = $70,000 for the grief their 
software has caused me? your advice welcome . . .
    annie.
    CC:Dave Monk,Mason Hastie



MTC-00013892

From: Gustavo Luna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:11pm
    Your Honor,
    I am opposed to the settlement in the U.S. versus Microsoft case 
that sits before your court. It is wrong to allow Microsoft to 
benefit from its past anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft must be 
prevented from using its monopoly powers again in the future, and 
this proposed final judgment fails to do that.
    Respectfully,
    Gus Luna

[[Page 25852]]



MTC-00013893

From: Michael J. Partsch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:12pm
Subject: Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    It is my view that the proposed U.S. vs. Microsoft settlement 
before you is flawed, and I urge you to reject it. Microsoft has 
benefitted enormously from its past monopoly powers, as every court 
has concluded.
    This settlement allows Microsoft to retain those ill-gotten 
benefits. Furthermore, there's no means for ensuring that Microsoft 
will desist from engaging in anti-trust violations in the future. I 
feel that it is in the best interest of the public to oppose the 
proposed final judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Partsch
    795 Promontory Drive West
    Newport Beach, CA 92660
    (949) 675-3296
    Alternate e-mail:
    Work: [email protected]



MTC-00013894

From: Mike Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's my belief that at least one point has been missed in the 
Government's position. The Government's contention, as I understand 
it, is that Microsoft is using it's operating system monopoly to 
unfairly gain dominance in internet browsers. That browser dominance 
would then secure their operating system monopoly. Although I 
believe that this is the case, I also believe that their is more to 
Microsoft's attempt to gain browser dominance. The internet is a 
relatively young (at least the www portion of it) development which 
as of now no one controls. Internet standards are agreed upon and 
approved by a committee of various internet entities. If a company 
wants to put out proprietary software for the internet and charge 
for it there is a good chance that internet users will find a free 
alternative. If a company has a monopoly in the browser they are 
also the only company that can ignore the committees standards and 
use their own. Once they have established their dominance with 
internet standards they can market their for-profit products 
(Windows 2000, site server, etc.) as the only products that 
guarantee internet compliance since they would decide what complies. 
This would then help them gain dominance in other areas. This is the 
path that Microsoft has time and again chosen. Gain dominance in the 
operating system market and then scare consumers into thinking that 
if you are not using their operating system, then you won't be 
compatible with the rest of the world. Same with their office suite. 
For as much talk as Microsoft makes about innovating, I can't think 
of a single product that they make that wasn't made by another 
company before them. Windows = Macintosh OS; Word = WordPerfect; 
Excel =Lotus 123; Internet Explorer = Netscape; etc. They don't 
innovate, they copy and then bully people into using their versions 
through fear that they won't be able to do what everyone else can 
do. It's another reason they don't let competition in on the same 
Windows APIs that they use in application development.
    I believe that breaking them up is the wrong idea (and was glad 
when you dropped that as an option). I think the best thing to do is 
make Microsoft release it's Windows APIs to application developers 
so they can compete on a level playing field. In addition I would 
require them to develop their browsers to only the commonly agreed 
upon standards of the internet for the next 5 years. This gives the 
internet a chance to mature in an open competitive way, instead of 
just following Microsoft's ``innovations.''
    Thanks
    Mike Stone



MTC-00013895

From: Anthony Levensalor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I am a software developer who works across all platforms, and I 
primarily perform applications programming for the MS Windows breed 
of OS. Having said that, I would like to comment on the proposed 
final judgment that is on the table now, during the public comment 
period.
    I feel the the proposed final judgement fails to properly and 
adequately address the misconduct of Microsoft Corporation in it's 
anti-competitive acticities, as well as leaves enough room for 
Microsoft to find it easy to manipulate the agreement and perform 
future transgressions in the arena of anti-competition.
    I am not a wordy individual, and I have no intention of telling 
you the facts of your own case. My sole comment here is on whether 
or not the proposed final agreement is in the public interest, and I 
think the answer is no. If we allow this, where will that lead in 
the future? It has only been 7 Years since Windows 95 hit the 
streets, remember, and Microsoft already has (seemingly) more power 
than our federal government. What will happen in ten, fifteen, or 
twenty years? What state will we have come to then, if we let ANYONE 
think that this sort of attitude is ok for a corporation to have?
    Thank you for your time,
    Anthony Levensalor
    Software Engineer



MTC-00013896

From: Jeffrey Eckman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Microsoft is allowed to have as part of a settlement a 
donation of hardware and Microsoft software to schools, it will 
further Microsoft's monopoly.
    If this lawsuit were against big tobacco, it would be like 
allowing a tobacco firm to settle by giving free cigarettes to 
580,000 students. I'm not sure if I'm sending this to the right 
place. . .  but I'm giving it a shot!
    -Jeffrey Eckman
Jeffrey Eckman
Systems Administrator
McDougal Littell, a Houghton Mifflin Company
222 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02116
[email protected]
phone: 617-351-3035
fax: 617-351-1213
toll free pager: 1-877-428-1240, use option 3
email to pager: [email protected]
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00013897

From: Brian Kichler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    First of all, thank you for soliciting comments from the public. 
I was personally in favor of the original proposal to break up 
Microsoft, and was disappointed with the weakness of the Justice 
Department when the time came. Microsoft's cynical idea to donate 
``almost 1 billion worth of software'' to schools is almost 
certainly yet another flagrant attempt to grab market share and 
establish a monopoly in yet another sector of the economy. 
Personally, if Microsoft truly wants to provide a community service 
and give money to education, they should donate it in cash. That 
way, the schools in question will have the opportunity to spend the 
money in whatever way they see fit. Microsoft is an illegal 
monopoly, and the government must take that into account when they 
deal with the company. Thank you. 
    Brian Kichler



MTC-00013898

From: SCHMIDT Victor H
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel MOST STRONGLY that Microsoft should NOT be allowed to 
profit from this settlement in ANY way. They should be required to 
pay the settlement in CASH, the cash should be managed by a third 
party (in a Trust Fund or something similar) and the schools and 
others involved should have total control of where their part of the 
settlement money is spent. ie., NO-ONE should be pushing them to buy 
Microsoft products, to use Windows PC's, or Microsoft software, etc. 
(No coupons, no discounted software etc as long as it's Microsoft, 
etc). Apple Computer has worked very long and very hard to get to 
the place they are in the computer business, and especially where 
they are in the education market. Microsoft should not be allowed to 
make ANY progress or inroads into ANY market--and ESPECIALLY into 
the education market, because of this settlement. This settlement 
should be a punitive thing which does more than just slap 
Microsoft's corporate hands and lets them continue to make use of 
their monopoly position in the computer marketplace.
    Thank you, from a dedicated Apple Computer user.
    Vic Schmidt--ISL
    Downtown Portland Office
    1433 SW 6th Avenue
    Portland OR 97207-0159
    (503) 731-3399

[[Page 25853]]

    [email protected]



MTC-00013899

From: Mike Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement deal is a joke! Allowing them to give 
``donations'' to the education market is really about giving them a 
free shot at establishing another monopoly in a market they couldn't 
otherwise crack with their inferior software. The only thing the 
boys in Redmond understand is money and the only only pain they 
understand is being fined.
    Mike Jackson
    Mental Pictures Photography & Graphic Design
    http://guide.net/~mental/
    (228) 696-2702 Phone/ Fax
    (228) 918-4596 Cellular



MTC-00013900

From: Patrick C. Tullo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed anti-trust settlement negotiated among 
Microsoft, the federal government, and nine states. Additional 
litigation would not be in the best interest of consumers or 
taxpayers. Microsoft is largely responsible for the thriving 
technology environment we enjoy today. This environment is the 
result of the open PC Windows-based architecture which has spawned 
the development of countless third-party applications operating 
virtually seamlessly across PC platforms.
    Thank you for considering my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick C. Tullo
    11744--295th Street Way
    f/k/a 29500--115th Ave. Way
    Welch, MN 55089-4101
    [email protected]



MTC-00013901

From: jnewk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:52pm
Subject: USAGNewkirk_Jay_1077_0116
255091 Pioneer Way NW
Poulsbo, WA 98370
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The terms of the 
settlement are fair and the technology industry needs to move 
forward. Many people think that Microsoft got off easy; this is 
simply not true. The settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. The company agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit, simply for the sake of wrapping up 
the suit. Microsoft is far and away the technology industry's 
leader. During these tough times the industry needs its leader to be 
able to concentrate on business, not government over regulation. The 
industry needs to move on and regain the momentum that it once 
possessed. The terms of the settlement are fair and it is time for 
the entire industry to move forward. Please accept the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jay Newkirk



MTC-00013902

From: Ron Limb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    My name is Ron Limb and I am a high tech entrepreneur residing 
in Silicon Valley. I am writing this letter because I am concerned 
about the proposed final judgment in Microsoft's anti-trust 
violations. The proposed settlement does not adequately address the 
needs of small high tech innovators who are not able to rise out of 
the long shadow cast by Microsoft's monopoly in the tech industry. 
The business antics of Microsoft is harmful to the industry. As a 
concerned citizen, I object to the propose settlement.
    Ron Limb
    781 Old Orchard Rd.
    Campbell, CA 95008
    408-370-7070



MTC-00013903

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir,
    Please accept the attached letter. Thank You.
    Regards,
    John Klemm
    2532 Coachman Court
    Mobile, AL 36695-3724
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you with concern over the 
recent developments in the anti-trust suit. Microsoft has made many 
concessions to appease various parties in this suit, only to be 
further scrutinized. It is time to move forward and let the terms of 
this agreement speak out for themselves.
    After three years of negotiations, the parties involved in this 
suit have reached an agreement that is fair and reasonable and 
beneficial to all involved. Unfortunately, certain politicians have 
decided to prolong this settlement and waste our precious resources 
on further dissection of the already agreed upon terms. Under these 
provisions, Microsoft agrees to make changes in licensing and 
marketing terms, as well as changes in design. A three-person 
technical committee with a government representative will oversee 
Microsoft's work, and consider complaints. These concessions are 
clearly working toward a more unified IT sector and a step toward 
advanced innovation.
    By instigating further litigation, we do nothing more than slow 
down our innovative process. Anyone sensible person can see that 
slowing down our American technology industry directly affects our 
American economic growth. Let us not be the ones to stop the very 
process that we initiated. Please help to stop any further 
litigation on this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    John Klemm



MTC-00013904

From: Carole (q)Lady(q) Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:06pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Please settle this lawsuit against Microsoft. It has done 
immeasurable harm to my finances and those of many others.
    Carole Phillips



MTC-00013905

From: Janice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:01pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I didn't agree with the lawsuits in the first place. They don't 
help anyone but the lawyers. Microsoft is Bill Gates company and I 
admire, and am in awe of, his brains and ability. I almost think it 
would be funny if he got tired of all this and just shut the company 
down. Where would we all be then? Make the settlement final!! Enough 
is enough.



MTC-00013906

From: Jeff Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft has harmed businesses and consumers.
To: Department of Justice
    I am disappointed with the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
don't see it changing anything that will help stop the problems that 
Microsoft causes. The case didn't bring up many of the underhanded 
things Microsoft does. Microsoft and SGI signed an agreement to port 
a version of OpenGL to windows. SGI committed the people and money 
to the project, but Microsoft only gave partial support. We spent 
the next nine months hearing how the SGI programmers were overloaded 
while the Microsoft programmers were not holding up their end of the 
deal. After a year Microsoft dropped the contract and OpenGL support 
from windows and released a a new DirectX. This hurt not only SGI, 
since they were left without resources to improve OpenGL on thier 
own machines, but SGI customers like us. We suffered as SGI was 
duped into devoting resources. Even personally I have been hurt by 
Microsoft's monopoly. In 1994 I bought a Gateway computer with 
Office Pro. The OEM prices was $229. The were under pricing both 
Lotus Smart Suite and Wordperfect Suite. There was competition then. 
In 1998 Office Pro ``97 upgrade was $329, while Wordperfect Office 7 
was $189. The last package I bought in 2001 was Office Pro 2000 
upgrade is now $399 while Wordperfect Office 9 is $229. Where is the 
competition now? Microsoft low-balled the prices when they didn't 
own the market. Now they have 90% market share and their prices have 
gone up an up as they've

[[Page 25854]]

captured the entire market. How is the settlement going to restore 
competition in the office market? How can any OS vender compete with 
Microsoft when Microsoft won't allow OEMs to install dual-boot with 
other OSes?
    It seems the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give away 
the software like with Sun Office and hope that enough people are 
sick of supporting Microsoft. Unfortunately this won't work where I 
work since the Sun Office isn't on the government buy list.
    Jeffrey Hill
    Just a Lockheed Martin Computer Geek



MTC-00013907

From: Jonathan Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement is too weak. It will do little to change 
Microsoft's behavior or more importantly open the playing field to 
other competitors. I think Scott Rosenberg's proposal to force 
Microsoft to open the Windows APIs and Office file formats to 
competitors is an excellent solution.
    Repsectfully,
    Jonathan Taylor
Instructor, Design & Illustration
Burlington Tech Center
52 Instutue Road
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 865-4163



MTC-00013908

From: Lee Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear sir, Stop picking on Microsoft you have cost them and their 
stockholders millions of dollars. Enough is enough,
    Kenneth L Davis



MTC-00013909

From: Daniel Andrade
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Representative of the American Justice System:
    I write this letter because of concern for my livelihood. I am a 
computer professional, and have worked with computers and operating 
systems from a number of vendors since the earliest days of personal 
computers, and I must say that the Microsoft case has held my 
attention because it is a case of landmark importance for the 
security, and financial future of the United States, and the world.
    Microsoft holds a vast market share of the personal computer 
operating system market and there is nothing wrong with that. 
However, their means of maintaining this dominance has been found 
illegal, and there are other issues with Microsoft software that 
need to be addressed if they are to continue holding a monopoly.
    First and foremost they must conform to standard networking 
protocols. Additional features can then be built into an 
application, but the base application must operate no matter what 
operating sytem is being used.
    Second, they need to make freely available the formats for their 
proprietary file formats. Users have been forced into upgrades of 
software packages that cost as much as hardware for a new computer 
because they will not be able to read files if they do not upgrade. 
This is tantamount to price fixing and the exact reason that 
monopolies are so keenly watched, and closely regulated.
    Third, the security of their products needs to be reviewed by 
outside sources. Microsoft has continually pledged to improve their 
security, and year after year they release software that subjects 
even non-Microsoft users to attacks, and intrustions. All of the 
major Internet security issues such as Code Red, Code Blue, Nimbda, 
Love Letter, Kournikova, Melissa, and more have been based on 
``features'' that Microsoft did not take the time to perfect or 
secure. Their email server retails for over $6000 and can not even 
close a major security hole related to sending spam without 
customization. Qmail is an open source product available for free 
download that has no known security holes and a standing offer to 
pay anyone that can find such a hole $500.
    In summary, if you take away the ability of Microsoft to write 
programs that will only work with other Microsoft products, truly 
fair competition can finally occur, this will not be achieved 
through splitting the company, or ``giving'' software to schools 
that Microsoft did not have to purchase at a retail price in the 
first place. In fact, schools are one of the few non-Microsoft 
dominated markets and it would be a shame to actually extend the 
monopoly into untapped markets as part of the settlement.
    What needs to be done, is to have Microsoft publish the source 
code for any proprietary modifications that they make to widely held 
standards such as the C++ programming language, Domain Name Services 
networking protocols, or the most recent core of their .Net products 
Xstensible Markup Language.
    In addition, Microsoft operating systems should be as much more 
expensive when you buy them with a computer, as when you buy an 
upgrade, or original retail copy. Tacking one to two hundred dollars 
onto the price of a Windows PC will be cause for the average 
consumer to reconsider participating in a monopoly, and would leave 
a very real window of opportunity for other vendors to secure a 
market share in the operating system arena.
    When a security flaw is found in a Microsoft product that 
endangers businesses livelihood on the Internet the source code 
should be released for public examination. In this way threats to 
public, and national security can be abated with a thorough testing. 
Instead of a never ending series of repairs after the opening is 
already being maliciously exploited to cause network outages, or 
data loss. These suggestions would be good for the country, good for 
consumers, and a bitter, but much needed remedy for the problems of 
Microsoft that caused this antitrust action to be taken in the first 
place. I appreciate your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Andrade
    1335 Haddington Dr
    Riverside, CA 92507



MTC-00013910

From: Kenneth Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: When?
    Dear Mr. . Attorney General, After reading the proposed court 
settlement with Microsoft and the DOJ, then finding out that several 
states have rejected it, including my own (California) I was very 
surprised and disappointed. I have sent correspondence to Dianne 
Feinstein and Representative Cox; relating to this issue several 
months ago and got an answer from Mrs. Feinstein that was baffling 
and convinced me that some of our elected officials do not seem to 
have a firm understanding about the nature of the software business 
and the impact their decisions can make.
    Representative Cox on the other hand seemed to have a ready 
grasp of the issues and didn't sound like he was preaching from a 
soap box. I keep hearing rhetoric from the same people and those 
same people just seem to be not dealing with the realistic issues 
presented them several times such as innovation impact, property 
rights, economic impact and so on. This is insane and must stop.
    I am a programmer, but more importantly, as a citizen who 
believes in democracy and capitalism, I support the idea that any 
company, not just Microsoft should be allowed to keep their 
intellectual property under lock and key and protected as well as 
also be allowed to ensure that products designed to work for and 
with their systems do so without interfering with the normal 
intended use that system. Anything less is questionable and brings 
us back to the days when we had no integration or support from big 
software companies and we were forced to buy a myriad of products 
both hardware and software to get things to work; none of which 
could ``talk'' to each other. Fragmenting Microsoft and/or the 
browser will effectively roll back years of work many of us as 
platform developers have put in to deliver value and line of 
business applications for our end customers.
    I work for a very large insurance company in Southern 
California, our customers have grown to appreciate the speed and 
flexibility with which we have provided in bringing them new 
applications such as the ability to download their Fund Performance 
values for their insurance product. This is because we are able to 
develop them faster because of tight integration used by Microsoft 
in their products and the use of Platform technology by Microsoft.
    Without increased interoperability of compatible systems and 
tight integration with operating system products from the same 
vendor we end up fragmenting a whole industry that has grown up 
around this idea. In addition, there is a whole cottage industry 
built around Windows that as developers allows us to free ourselves 
from ``rolling our own software'' and focus on delivering value and 
needed critical line of business applications for our customers; 
capitalizing on integration and features only found in Windows 
components and Windows

[[Page 25855]]

operating systems; most of which is dependant on the Internet which 
is why Internet Explorer platform development is so critical to our 
continued success as programmers and company.
    Last, we would never require that Ford Motor Company ensure that 
a Chevrolet engine fit and be compatible with Ford products and that 
is essentially what we are talking about. The internet browser has 
been hailed as an accessory, but in fact Microsoft has integrated 
that into the operating system to take advantage of features only 
present in Windows, and not other systems. Netscape tried to 
integrate their browser into Windows but failed because of course, 
that's like Chevrolet buying Ford engines and selling brand new cars 
as Chevy's, with Ford engines. Who is going to be responsible for 
the engine? If we take it back to Chevy will they tell us to it's 
Ford's problem? If Ford didn't agree to support the engine if Chevy 
did this, will Chevy be responsible? This is the potentially weird 
situation we find ourselves in with this browser issue. It is part 
of the operating system much like Bank Of America owns all of their 
own ATM machines, do you think they should be forced to carry Well's 
Fargo Atm's so they can get a cut of the transaction fee? I don't 
see this as any different and set's a bad precedent for future 
development.
    No one should have to argue this, it's marketing 101. It's the 
thing that separates a good operating system from a great one. I 
speak for many developers who would like to see this come to a 
successful conclusion so that we can continue to build web enabled 
applications for our customers without worrying if we are going to 
have to change hats and become support personnel for the 
fragmentation that will surely follow if hold out states get their 
way and the loss of jobs this would cause because of stifled 
innovation.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Kenneth W. Cox



MTC-00013911

From: EMMETT STROSCHEIM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case as soon as possible.
    It should'nt have started in the first place.
    E. L. Stroscheim
    Cornelius,Or.



MTC-00013912

From: Calin Lincicum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft is a bloated monopoly. The only recourse with any 
adequate Irony is to nationalize and utility-status The whole MS 
Windows platform. Let the Fed knock MS around for a couple of 
decades to wear the predation out of the management.
    Just a thought.
    Cal



MTC-00013913

From: Harry McHugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  5:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
55 Salt Cedar Lane
Johns Island, SC 29455-5803
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Microsoft and the Justice Department have 
reached a settlement in the antitrust case. The reason I am 
contacting you is because I would like you to resolutely support 
this settlement.
    DOJ officials and Microsoft reached this settlement after three 
years of costly litigation. Outside interests have been criticizing 
this settlement, some with the hope this case will resume. However 
this settlement is thorough and will bring positive change. There is 
no reason for further federal action. Among other changes the 
settlement will give computer makers the flexibility to place 
competing software on Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft is also 
going to release computer code to competitors so they can produce 
more competitive software.
    Let's end this ridiculous exercise, led by fee hungry lawyers 
and Micorsolt's competition. Microsoft is one of America's crown 
jewels, let them move forward at what they do best; create software.
    I respectfully plead with you to settle this case without delay.
    Sincerely,
    Harry McHugh



MTC-00013914

From: Brad Greene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned that the recent resolution to the 
Microsoft anti-trust issue does not adequately address the needs and 
rights of the people. From what I have read the PFJ does not even 
address the concerns raised by the Appeals Court. The current PFJ 
smacks of back room dealing for the benefit of influential people 
and to the detriment of the consumer at large. Any resolution to 
this matter must seek a balance between short and long term needs. 
Above all we MUST support free competition and the innovation that 
it fosters.
    Regards, Brad Greene,
    2197 E. Bayshore Rd.
    Palo Alto, CA 94303



MTC-00013915

From: Michael Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been ``playing dirty'' for a very long time. . . 
at least the past 10 years, if not longer. Do you really think they 
don't have a plan for working around a self-proposed settlement? 
Let's not be so na?ve.
    The only way you're going to keep them from cheating is to split 
them up and make them compete against themselves. Otherwise they 
will continue to use their dominance in some markets to destroy good 
competitors in other ones.
    Michael
    G: ``If we do happen to step on a mine, Sir, what do we do?''
    EB: ``Normal procedure, Lieutenant, is to jump 200 feet in the 
air and scatter oneself over a wide area.''



MTC-00013916

From: Merle Pearson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:27pm
    To whom it may concern,
    I think the government should leave Microsoft alone. Drop all 
the charges because Microsoft never did wrong. This government is 
suppose to be for the people. This family and a lot of our friends 
think this case should have never been in court. Please just drop 
it.
    Rogena Pearson Poe
    112 Smokey Run Road
    Tellico Plains Tn. 37385



MTC-00013917

From: Daniel Cloud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    So far in the settlement proceedings, Microsoft has been dealt 
with very lightly. Talks of splitting the company up seemed very 
reasonable, especially given the fact that in the past companies 
have forced to sell certain software assets in order to limit a 
monopoly in certain software categories. Large companies have been 
treated in this way in the past.
    It should be no different with Microsoft. The Operating System, 
the web browser, the Office suite, etc. are separately salable 
products. What Microsoft has done, and the court already agreed that 
this is monopolistic and illegal, is first create an operating 
system monopoly and use that monopoly to build monopolies in other 
types of software such as web browsing and productivity applications 
(MS Office). It seems then that the only way to truly break up the 
monopoly would be to separate the software applications by selling 
the code to other companies. The profit from selling the rights to 
the software should go into a fund for schools to buy computers and 
software of their choice. Given the clearness of Microsoft's 
monopoly practices that have been built upon years of unfair and 
anti-competitive business deals, it is imperative that the company 
be reshaped so that it doesn't resemble what it is today. This would 
also be good for Microsoft and the people who actually want their 
products because by narrowing Microsoft's reach, it will bring focus 
to building the fewer products better. When the software 
applications are split amongst other companies, development of 
competition will occur and the companies that bought Microsoft 
application code will be forced to make a better product to compete, 
and the consumer will benefit.
    I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this subject 
and hope that in making a final decision, you realize that allowing 
the guilty defendant to decide its own sentence would be unfair, 
inadequate, and most of all, unjust.
    Thank you.
    Daniel Cloud
    (910) 794-3089 Home
    (910) 350-9918 Pager

[[Page 25856]]



MTC-00013918

From: David Llewellyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:55pm
Subject: Keep it fair
    Although, Microsoft is a large part of everyone's daily work and 
play. It's time to allow the computer industry to innovate and that 
can not be done when one organization controls more than 80% of the 
market. Microsoft should be broken up and made to compete with other 
and with the separate and newly partitioned Microsoft organizations. 
Similar to what occurred when AT&T and the regional Bell companies 
were formed. Based upon the current judgment this will not happen. 
Yet, Microsoft must be changed by the final ruling.
    David S. Llewellyn
    President
    Wyvern International



MTC-00013919

From: Michial Freigang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Litigation
    Being self-employed for almost 28 years, the positive 
contributions made to the planning and execution of my business by 
using Microsoft products were immeasureable.
    To continue litigation against Microsoft is, in my opinion, a 
questionable use of government resources. The DOJ guidelines to 
which Microsoft is being asked to adhere is fair and reasonable, 
nothing further need be done.
    Thank-you.
    Repectfully submitted,
    Michial A. Freigang



MTC-00013920

From: Hillary Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As a high school teacher in Silicon Valley, I am extremely 
concerned about the recent Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the 
U.S. vs Microsoft case that you are considering. Microsoft has 
clearly violated antitrust laws and needs to be held accountable for 
their actions so that other members of the technology community are 
protected. I object the PFJ and urge you to be a catalyst for 
terminating Microsoft's illegal monopoly, deny Microsoft any 
benefits from its past violations and prevent any future 
anticompetitive activity.
    Sincerely,
    Hillary Brubaker
    1155 Yosemite Avenue
    San Jose, CA 95126
    408.299.0705



MTC-00013921

From: Jarod Guertin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to humbly submit the following suggestion relating 
to the Microsoft Settlement.
    It is the objective of the following argument to propose that 
the settlement should include a provision to force Microsoft to 
fully disclose to all competing parties the format of the end data 
files now considered standard. In this context, end data files, is 
meant to cover the end result file of the most common Microsoft 
applications utilized by both the end-user and business-user such 
as, but not limited to: A corollary is that any planned changes in 
those file formats would have to be communicated to the industry in 
advance to allow full support and compatibility.
    This proposal relies on the argument that the operating system 
(MS Windows) has maintained its monopoly partly by preventing 
competing developer in making applications that were able to read 
and write flawlessly (which means full knowledge of all the 
structures and features not just a partial disclosure) in the file 
formats that have become the most common and therefore at the base 
of most information exchange in the business world and at home. One 
of the most common argument heard from people opposing or fearing 
too harsh of a settlement against Microsoft is the fear that they 
may not be able to exchange data as easily and freely as they now 
can if they remain in the Microsoft applications\OS realm. It would 
indeed hurt communications and business alike if suddenly the 
industry was thrown back in the times where a cacophony of formats 
existed and were more or less equally supported; this often resulted 
in corruption or loss of data during conversion and in the worst 
cases would lead to the inability to read the data altogether 
because a different application or application version was used. 
While many formats still exist today, it is hard to deny that the 
Microsoft formats have become the standard by way of the monopoly 
Microsoft enforced as found by the high courts'' ruling.
    Some, including Microsoft themselves, might argue that those 
formats are known well enough and that many applications can read 
the files in those formats. User experience however repeatedly and 
continuously disproves this statement. All third party data 
conversion seen so far are eventually marred with either glitches, 
corruption of information, loss of data, misalignments, etc. It 
would be extremely hard to believe that the entire industry, for the 
exception of Microsoft, is incompetent. It is much more plausible 
that full disclosure of those file formats were never carried out 
but only partial information on the most basic structures were given 
thus leaving out some of the most advanced features and nuances 
which makes all those third party applications look deficient to the 
user. The user then has little choice in order to conduct business 
effectively but to disregard those apparently ``inferior'' third 
party applications and to move to Microsoft applications thus 
strengthening the monopoly.
    Finally one might ask if firstly, such a requirement on 
Microsoft is just, and secondly if it is a remedy. Given the courts 
ruling that Microsoft used monopolistic practices to extend their 
hold on the industry, the popularity which made them become standard 
file formats is a result of the monopoly and serves to proliferate 
and maintain the monopoly. Since those file formats originated and 
help enforce the monopoly statu quo, it seems fair that they should 
be included in such a settlement.
    Secondly, is this in any part a remedy? Once third party 
application developers are able to read and generate fully the most 
complex variants of those popular file formats, the competition 
between Microsoft's applications and third party's application will 
become possible again and will be based solely on the merit of the 
software itself, its features and its price. Once enough third party 
applications exists that are fairly competing with Microsoft's 
products, it will enable the industry to fully support any operating 
system that the business community and end user choose to, without 
fear of data communication and file transfer problems. At that time, 
Microsoft's operating system will again face fair competition and 
will have to resume competing based solely on the merit of the OS 
itself, its features and its price. Although it is extremely hard to 
predict how much time it would take to reach that point, a 
conservative guess would be 5-7 years.
    That might seem like a very slow course of action for a remedy 
but its slowness would allow a smooth and non-disruptive transition 
from monopoly to fair competition as third party developer catches 
up to the lead obtained by monopoly. It would revitalize the 
industry and renew the creativity and commercialism of third party 
developers, in fair competition. It is even the opinion of this 
writer, that those file formats should become regulated by standard 
bodies from the industry like JPEG and MPEG were.
    If Microsoft judges that this argument is moot because it 
pretends to fully disclose those formats already, then including it 
in the settlement should not be an issue. If Microsoft objects and 
tries to use patent, trademark or industrial secret arguments, then 
it only strengthens the validity of the argument itself.
    Please note that this suggestion is only seen as an additional 
item of the settlement and therefore meant as complementary.
    Thank you and God bless America.
    J.G.



MTC-00013922

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:22pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
10 Moreland Ave.
Bethlehem, PA 18017
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like the Department of Justice to agree to the 
provisions of the November decision and settle the Microsoft 
antitrust suit. Those nine states are unfairly holding up the end of 
the court case. Microsoft has in good faith made concessions and now 
it is time to stop this litigation. U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick 
Motz made a bad court decision when he ruled on January 11th. Let

[[Page 25857]]

us move on. We have spent enough time on these issues.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Reinoehl



MTC-00013923

From: Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, Microsoft should buy for schools computers and 
software from one of their leading competitors, Apple, as to help 
stop their monopoly from growing into this area.
    Alex Keeny



MTC-00013924

From: John C Trosie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the good of all concerned, the economy, the government and 
all of the allied industries and companies a swift end to the 
controversy should be made as per the Settlement which is firm and 
fair and good for the consumers
    John C Trosie



MTC-00013925

From: Bob Harris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  7:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge that the settlement proceed on basis of the MS offer. 
Let's get this mess behind us. I'm no computer expert though as a 
senior I've wrestled with them for 12-13 years. I find it hard to 
believe that people buying computers and software are mislead or 
trapped into buying MS. The complaints have been from a minority and 
I beleave from those envious of the success of, or are competitors 
of, MS.
    Though I have both COX and AOL I'm more concerned about the 
size, spread and options of AOL than MS.
    It was and is, a tough competive field out there, MS has done a 
better job. Thanks for reading (listening?)
    Robert E. Harris



MTC-00013926

From: Mark Lawler
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find this entire case against Microsoft ridiculous. Just close 
the books on it and quit wasting my tax dollars.
    What type of car do you drive? Does it have a built in heater 
for your comfort? Air conditioner? How about a radio? Cup holders? 
You see, if I apply the same logic the DOJ used in this case against 
Microsoft your vehicle shouldn't have these things at all. A car is 
nothing more than a platform and as such automobile manufacturers 
have had an unfair competitive advantage to add these things to 
their default platform; they should have been stopped from doing so 
years ago. Just think of the companies squeezed out of business when 
the auto manufacturers added cup holders to automobiles a couple of 
years ago? How much revenue did the local gas station lose when 
people quit buying cup holders? Forget that it makes sense for a cup 
holder to be an integrated part of your interior and that a 3rd 
party add-on that hangs from a vent or a window crack is ugly, ill 
fitting, and gets in the way: It's wrong and the DOJ should have 
stopped the automobile manufacturers from using their platform in a 
monopolistic way against these poor third party vendors. Yah, right. 
. . 
    Look guys as stupid as this sounds it's the very same thing with 
Microsoft and this case. All these features they Microsoft is 
accused of adding where things that customers asked them to make 
part of the operating platform for better integration and for a more 
streamlined and pleasurable customer experience. It is nothing 
different than what Ford does every day when it makes a design 
decision for one of its new cars.
    mark
    Mark Lawler
    Chief Technology Officer
    office (503) 889-4815
    cell (503) 329-8967
    ProSight, Inc.,
    Portfolio Management for Technology Leaders



MTC-00013928

From: Kane Lauck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's obvious Microsoft uses techniques involving baiting and 
torture. They bait the customer with shoddy piracy control or low 
prices, then they torture them with increased prices and unbreakable 
software control.
    Mac OS X is much stabler and intuitive.
    Kane Lauck
    Savannah, GA
    Savannah College of Art and Design



MTC-00013929

From: BryantKing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please proceed with the proposed settlement. Let the people that 
pay the majority of taxes get back to work. And be thankful they 
still WANT to work. If Microsoft has agreed to this settlement, then 
get on with it.
    Sincerely
    Bryant A King



MTC-00013930

From: Travis Minke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement Opinion
    I am 27yrs old, have a Master of Science degree in computer 
science, and have been working professionally in the computer 
industry for 5 years. I have experience developing on the Windows, 
Solaris, IRIX, and Linux operating systems. I have also been closely 
following the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, and wanted to take this 
opportunity to add my opinion. I am very disappointed with the 
settlement reached between DOJ and Microsoft. I applaud the nine 
states who have the strength of character to keep fighting for what 
is right. It has twice been determined that Microsoft has abused 
it's monopoly, and yet the DOJ has rolled over and basically given 
Microsoft a sweetheart (slap-on-the-wrist) deal. I don't, in any 
way, think the settlement offers fair punishment, or sufficient 
protection from future behavior.
    Microsoft is so blatantly confident in its ability to dominate 
without interference, that in the midst of this trial it openly 
pushes ahead with its .NET/HAILSTORM plans. Microsoft has (finally) 
realized that the internet is the key to control in the future 
(whereas the OS was in the past) and is making every move possible 
to dominate that space in the same way.
    Microsoft claims it needs freedom to innovate when in fact 
Microsoft has innovated very little over the years. Most 
technological breakthroughs commonly attributed to Microsoft were 
either stolen, copied, or bought. If anything I would argue that 
Microsoft has sufficiently stifled innovation to put the software 
industry a decade behind. They are a two-faced company that presents 
a good (Disney-esque) image to the public, while a minimal amount of 
scrutiny provides a wealth of information to the contrary.
    Microsoft's weakness is being exploited today by the open source 
movement, specifically the gnu/linux project and the GPL. Here is a 
model they cannot steal, copy, or buy. It disgusts me, but is not 
surprising, that in the face of some real competition they don't 
innovate their way to a better product and compete on merit, but 
instead look for every possible emotional (FUD), legal solution to 
the problem. The current settlement provides no real punishment to 
Microsoft. Further indoctrinating a future generation of computer 
users is not a punishment in any sense of the word. There is 
specific language in the settlement which excludes the open source 
movement from any of the information sharing Microsoft might be 
forced into. If anything the settlement should spur competition, 
which as mentioned above means the open-source movement. I also 
believe the three-person supervisory panel will end up being a 
facade with no real power. (The selection process requiring 
Microsoft's approval pretty much guarantees this.) Others have 
commented at great length as to the loopholes and weaknesses of the 
settlement and I won't try to duplicate that here.
    To summarize, I and the software industry have been harmed by 
Microsoft's abuse of it's monopoly and I do not feel the current 
settlement does anything to address their past abuses, or insure 
future protection from such abuses. I am gravely disappointed in the 
US Department Of Justice for its incomprehensible capitulation to my 
generation's biggest bully.
    Sincerely,
    Travis Minke



MTC-00013931

From: Isburgh, Peter
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/18/02  8:18pm
Subject: comments
    Dear Sirs,
    Given the preponderance of monopoly abuse evidence against the 
defendent (as

[[Page 25858]]

documented in the Findings of Fact), how does the proposed 
settlement send a message that this behavior will not be tolerated 
by the United States? In fact, it rewards it! Please make the 
punishment fit the crime, which should be measured in the billions 
of dollars for punitive damages. How about using the award to fund a 
software technology incubator to rebuild the competition that 
Microsoft has so effectively repressed?



MTC-00013932

From: Bill Bogart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
4560 South 3065 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84117-4664
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I have been following the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement since it entered the federal courts three years ago. I do 
not believe suit should have been brought against Microsoft to begin 
with, and perhaps the settlement is too harsh with Microsoft, but in 
the interest of wrapping up the case, I believe the settlement 
should stand and the Justice Department should move on. I cannot 
fathom why half of the plaintiff states in this case wish to 
continue litigation against the Microsoft Corporation unless their 
ultimate goal is to bring about the destruction of Microsoft itself. 
There is nothing I see in the settlement that is unfair to the 
plaintiffs. Microsoft has, in fact, agreed to terms in the 
settlement that cover issues not on trial in the antitrust suit, 
solely in the interest of closing the case. Among other things, 
Microsoft has agreed to provide a party acting under the terms of 
the agreement with a license to pertinent intellectual property 
rights to prevent infringement. Moreover, Microsoft has agreed to 
license the Windows operating system to twenty of the largest 
computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including price. 
Mr. Ashcroft, I urge you not to allow this to go on any longer. No 
more action needs to be taken at the federal level. The settlement 
should stand.
    Sincerely,
    William Bogart



MTC-00013933

From: william r finch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:46pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    microsoft has stolen all its ideas and products-mostly from 
apple-it acts in restraint of trade and crushes any attempt at fair 
market competion-it should be broken up in small pieces and gates 
fined most of his illegal profits and jailed-respectfully-william r 
finch,102 mill pond rd,denton,texas 76209



MTC-00013934

From: Rick Borie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I intend to read the available information regarding the case 
and follow up this email when I can get some time. However, being a 
Macintosh fan I'd like to express my opinion based on my experience 
over the past decade or so as a Systems Administrator. First, 
Microsoft doesn't innovate--they copy existing technologies and then 
put them in Windows. They modify Windows occasionally so competitors 
software won't work as well or not at all. (Ex. Apple's QuickTime, 
Sun's Java) In short, they don't compete. They just find a way when 
possible to crush their competitors. Normally with their mediocre 
version of the product. Their latest proposal to satisfy this case 
(donating systems, software, etc. to schools) is just one example 
among countless other that shows their arrogance and unethical way 
of doing business. This was so obvious I think a 4 year could see 
right through it.
    I firmly believe that the computer industry as a whole would 
have advanced much more quickly without Microsoft's illegal 
practices. I also believe they will continue to do business this way 
unless this settlement forces them not to. I believe the settlement 
needs to make so that Microsoft only gains when they develop a 
better product than the competition. We all lose when the only game 
in town is Microsoft. I don't think the government should use 
Windows at all. I believe for all of the obvious reasons the 
government should use Linux almost exclusively. If they need to run 
Windows applications they can use a Windows emulator that runs on 
Linux. Let's face it, Linux is cheaper, faster, more secure, more 
customizable, comes with more applications, works and looks like 
Windows and wouldn't force the government to be tied in any way to 
Microsoft.
    I realize none of this is news to anyone familiar with the case 
but, I just feel better knowing I did something about something that 
is so obviously wrong. If anyone actually gets to read this, thanks. 
Here's hoping for a level playing ground,
    Rick Borie
    P.S. I'm sending this on Mac Cube with OS X and no Microsoft 
software was used.



MTC-00013935

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You have on your hands a tense situation. Surely the economy 
suffers if actions too drastic are taken. Does justice come second 
when the stock market's shaken? A matter wrapped in choices for 
endless contemplation.



MTC-00013936

From: Mike Kisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:34pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please consider this carefully as I think a great many times 
punishing the big guy because someone didn't get what he wanted 
hurts the consumers most. Mike



MTC-00013937

From: rbryant1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After stealing--IS THAT REALLY TOO STRONG A WORD/CONCEPT?--the 
GUIinterface from Apple (which Apple paid for the early research and 
futher perfected!) and foisting continually crappy software and 
ignoring virus/security and destroying countless lives and 
businesses thru its'longtime corrupt and illegal business practices. 
it is so nice to see the government of the PEOPLE-FOR THE PEOPLE let 
MICROSOFT OFF THE LEGAL HOOK and in the process to slip its'' crappy 
practices into the educational system therby hurting APPLE. MAY YOU 
ALL LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO REALLY REGRET IT AS MUCH AS THOSE THEY HAVE 
ALREADY HURT/DESTROYED.



MTC-00013938

From: Robert Pettigrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  8:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I was thrilled to see the Microsoft proposal rejected. Kudos. As 
for having anything monumental to suggest for the penalty, I am 
afraid I haven1t any groundbreaking thoughts. However, I think it is 
vitally important to remember exactly who the monopolistic and 
egocentric tactics of Microsoft really hurt. These being the many 
businesses that were diminished, or extinguished as a result, and 
the public themselves who lost any opportunity to support and/or 
nurture any competitors that would have otherwise had a viable 
vehicle to present their products. Microsoft was responsible for all 
of this, and more.
    The most disturbing thing to, up to this very day, is how 
Microsoft feels they are above the law; above the rights of the 
people. . .  In general, how they see themselves as having done 
nothing wrong.
    If I were to have the ``blood on my hands'', if you will, that 
Microsoft (who knows better than anyone else that it does) has, I 
would be very afraid. I strongly believe that they should have to 
pay dearly to the real victims of their actions. As to what that 
``price'' will be, I can only hope that the DOJ and the courts will 
dispense no less than what they have coming to them, and trust it 
will be so.
    Warmest regards,
    Robert Pettigrew



MTC-00013939

From: Philip Katz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern, I think the settlement worked out 
between Microsoft and the DOJ is unacceptable, especially in the 
area of education. By Microsoft giving their own products to 
schools, they are going to create a monopoly in about the only area 
they don't already have one. A better solution would be to 
distribute funds to the poor schools and let them decide what to buy 
with it. That way if Microsoft does become a monopoly in education, 
it will be legitimate. Thank you for your time.
    Philip Katz



MTC-00013940

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25859]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:02pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Robert W Cross
310 75th Avenue N Apt. 8
Myrtle Beach, SC 29572-4205
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am without a doubt in favor of Microsoft. In fact, this has 
been the case since the very beginning and no element of the 
litigation against them has caused me to feel otherwise. If 
anything, this legal action against them has only strengthened my 
respect for this highly progressive company. Microsoft has given a 
true example of professionalism, diplomacy and fortitude. The 
government on the other hand has given the people reason for 
confusion and doubt. Confusion because of the distortion of the 
concept of free enterprise and doubt in the government's ability to 
reach expeditious and fair resolutions of complex matters.
    Microsoft has chosen to accept restrictions and obligations that 
extend to products and technologies that were not at issue in the 
lawsuit. They have also agreed to broad terms involving aspects of 
Microsoft's business and product development that were not found to 
be unlawful by the Court of Appeals. I think this is a clear 
indication of that Microsoft is willing to compromise with the 
government.
    This lawsuit has caused severe damage to the economy and has 
drastically reduced production in the software industry. Putting an 
end to this protracted legal tussle by accepting the settlement will 
have a multitude of benefits. I hope that my views and those of 
others will help bring this matter long awaited closure.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W Cross



MTC-00013941

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let us move on with all that we may be!
    We, the people!



MTC-00013942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the government should not interfere with Microsoft. 
I think free enterprise works best while left alone. I think the 
consumer will sacrifice the most from any settlement or judgment 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David M. Merriman



MTC-00013943

From: Harry Reisenleiter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam: After following the court case, appeal, and 
settlement process, I find it necessary to offer the following 
thoughts. First, some background. Before entering the computer field 
fulltime, I spend 4 years earning my undergradutate degree and 4 
years in the United States Air Force. I studied computers in college 
and in my time in the USAF.
    I've been in the computer business since 1969, working through 
mainframes, midrange computers, desktops, laptops, palm tops, and 
hybrids. I've been fortunate to deal with innovative companies and 
with ethical companies. I've also had the misfortune of dealing with 
copy-cat companies and unethical companies. I've been on very 
successful projects providing customer-lead solutions in retail, 
wholesale, education, finance, manufacturing and now management 
services.
    Many of my experiences with vendors have been pleasant, and many 
by necessity, have been with Microsoft.
    I believe that the settlement under review at this time is 
grossly inadequate to address the unethical, monopolistic practices 
of Microsoft. Microsoft's business practices (unethical pricing, 
contract manipulation, illegal bundling, hidden code) have driven 
many creative companies out of business. Do to their actions, there 
are no longer any real competitors in any software field Microsoft 
has chosen to enter.
    Microsoft gained dominance by controlling the operating system 
and by bundling (and ``dumping'') software. Current pricing reflects 
the lack of competition. One example: When Word Perfect was a real 
competitor, Microsoft priced MS Word at $99. Now, MS Word is more 
than twice that price. Similarly, when Lotus 1-2-3 was a real 
competitor (and, remember, ther was also QuatroPro), Microsoft 
``dumped'' Excel, too. Then, after purchasing what became 
PowerPoint, Microsoft began bundling those three pieces of software 
for a price hardly higher than Word Perfect (or Lotus 1-2-3) alone.
    Microsoft has distorted (lied) about ``innovation'', ``great 
software'', ``customer focus'', and ``competition'' throughout the 
trial and appeals process.
    Let's take ``innovation''. Except for Windows OS and Excel 
(which was originally written for Macintosh), Microsoft has not 
created any new software. They've purchased Word, PowerPoint, 
Internet Explorer, FrontPage and Outlook. They've only innovated in 
pricing and bundling; not real technological innovation.
    Let's take ``great software''. Compare Palm's Desktop to 
Microsoft Outlook, specifically recurring meetings. In Palm, if you 
cancel an existing recurring meeting, the software presents 3 
choices--``this one'', ``all future'', and ``all''. Thus, meetings 
in the past will reflect history accurately. In Outlook, you are 
only given 2 choices--``all'' or ``this one''. Past recurring 
meetings, then, are lost. This is not ``great'', but very poor 
design. Another Microsoft distortion.
    In closing, I have but one request: please don't let this 
agreement stand. It is far too soft and will not change a thing as 
it currently is written. Microsoft has earned, and continues to 
earn, punishment. And that punishment needs to be behavior altering, 
not a mere shaking of the finger.
    Thank you,
    Harry Reisenleiter



MTC-00013944

From: Alex Brubaker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:28pm
Subject: [Fwd: microsoftsettlement]
    To who it may concern,
    It is beyond doubt that Microsoft has been judged to have 
systematically employed monopolistic and unfair business practices. 
By playing our legal system like a virtuoso, it has avoided any real 
harm to its core businesses and in fact has proven that it is better 
to break the law and pay what ever small price in order to gain 
momentum and market share. Microsoft is unchallenged and there is no 
end in sight.
    Any person that works in high tech sees the on-going effects of 
the monopoly that continues unabated. Technology important to US 
technological leadership is diluted and resisted because it doesn't 
fit into Bill Gate's vision of Microsoft's corporate hegemony.
    Now Microsoft is going to be ``giving'' Windows XP to 12,000 of 
the nations's poorest schools. What a great ploy. Now these 12,000 
schools will depend on Microsoft upgrades as well as train hundreds 
of thousands of future Microsoft consumers. Let's face it. Microsoft 
has won and owns us the future of computing for the foreseeable 
future. Please, someone have the decency to stand up and add an 
asterisk to this sad chapter in American corporate history. A better 
punishment would be to forbid Microsoft from giving XP to schools 
and let Apple use this marketing technique if it so chooses. That's 
how idiotic this ``compromise'' is.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Mendoza
    408-585-3903
    160 Towne Terrace %5
    Los Gatos, Ca 95032



MTC-00013946

From: ken borgerding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My thoughts--let it go already. The economy is having a hard 
enough time without you folks trying to sue successful companies 
into the ground.
    Did you notice that when you started penalizing companies for 
being successful, the stock market and the economy started to head 
south. Settlement?!? You may want to consider apologizing instead.



MTC-00013947

From: mae-sallee beals
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I would like to urge your department to expedite the settlement 
pending regarding Microsoft at the terms currently proposed by 
Microsoft. Their proposed settlement will benefit many.
    Sincerely,
    Mae-Sallee Beals,



MTC-00013948

From: Michael L Anderson

[[Page 25860]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disappointed with the Department of Justice's proposed 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation, which amounts to another 
consent decree. Unfortunately, Microsoft has already demonstrated 
beyond any reasonable doubt that it has no respect for consent 
decrees; its egregious violations of the 1995 consent decree are 
what brought about the current case.
    Those familiar with the computer industry are well aware that 
Microsoft's success has less to do with superior products (most 
experts agree its products are of generally mediocre quality at 
best), and more to do with its ability to leverage its monopoly in 
the operating system market, in which Windows has become the de 
facto standard. Its recent pricing changes with respect to Office 
and Windows business sales--nearly doubling the price of the 
licenses and now literally forcing business to buy its upgrades, 
even when they don't want them--demonstrate blatant abuse of its 
monopoly power, in the face of an ongoing anti-trust case no less! 
Any other business would lose enormous amounts of sales if it 
doubled the price of its product without substantially improving the 
quality, but Microsoft's market power is so extensive that it can do 
so with near impunity.
    The demonstrated ineffectiveness of consent decrees with respect 
to Microsoft, and the company's continuing abuse of its monopoly 
power, call for strong and effective remedies. Regulatory remedies 
in which the government directly supervises and dictates Microsoft's 
behavior are undesirable for obvious reasons. Instead, the 
Department of Justice should push for significant structural 
remedies, such as the breakup originally proposed by Judge Jackson. 
Only then will consumers benefit and will competition and 
innovation, the hallmarks of our great economic system, continue to 
flourish.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Anderson



MTC-00013949

From: Chris Klick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    Despite the fact that the appeals court found Microsoft to have 
abused monopoly powers, I urge you to settle this case by dropping 
it, apologizing to Microsoft, and paying their lawyers'' fees. Then 
you should close your antitrust division and wrap up paperback 
copies of ``Atlas Shrugged'' to serve as the severance package for 
your laid-off lawyers.
    You should drop the case because antitrust law is immoral. It 
infringes upon businesses'' inviolate property rights. Worse, it 
targets the most successful businesses because and to the extent 
that they are successful. Therefore it is ragingly anti-capitalist, 
like the progressive income tax. Secondarily, from a legal 
standpoint, antitrust law is ex post facto and therefore 
unconstitutional. There is no way for a business to know that it is 
violating the Sherman Act until a court, years later, defines its 
``market'' at the time of the alleged violation. Even if Microsoft 
itself (as evidenced by their emails) intended to dominate a 
recognized ``market'' at the time, this means objectively nothing. 
It was only Microsoft's opinion at the time.
    Chris Klick
    Houston, TX 77006



MTC-00013950

From: Charles H. Kohler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles H. Kohler
36 Mayflower Avenue
Williston Park, NY 11596-1518
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft and the Department of Justice recently settled their 
three year long court battle. I understand there is now a period of 
public comment, and I wish to add my support to this agreement. I do 
not think it should have happened in the first place. The lawsuit 
was more a problem of sour grapes on the part of the competition 
than any real unfair business dealings. The antitrust laws were 
created to protect the consumer, yet Microsoft has done nothing but 
help the consumer. Computer products are far cheaper than they were 
ten or fifteen years ago; software programs are simpler and easier 
to understand, and much more affordable to the average consumer. 
Bill Gates has made software technology part of everyday life.
    The agreement reached by Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
did not let Microsoft off easy.
    Microsoft has agreed to open up the company in such a way that 
computer makers will be able to configure Windows so as to promote 
non-Microsoft software programs; companies will be able to achieve a 
greater degree of reliability with regard to their networking 
software. And Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee, which 
will monitor the firm. I doubt other firms would do as much. It is 
time to go forward again. We have been through a rough time; but we 
are bouncing back. Letting Microsoft get back to business is a way 
to do this. Please give your support to this agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Charles H Kohler



MTC-00013951

From: Walter Palmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  10:58pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I oppose Microsoft's proposed settlement to the anti-trust suit 
because donating Windows computers is just another marketing move 
disguised as a ``punishment'. They should donate the money for 
schools to spend as they wish. If they insist on donating computers, 
\1/3\ should be Windows computers, \1/3\ Mac and \1/3\ Unix 
machines. Settlements of criminal trials are supposed to hurt--they 
are not supposed to act in furtherance of the business which has 
been found guilty.
    Take Care
    Walter
    ``For three days after death, hair and fingernails continue to 
grow but phone calls taper off.''--Johnny Carson



MTC-00013952

From: J. G. Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I am a resident of the State of Utah, and a stock holder of 
Microsoft. I have written to the AG of this state, and also the 
Governor, and asked the question: ``When this State has a 202 
million overrun in it's budget this year, and $700,000 of my tax 
money has already been spent to on this lawsuit, when the majority 
of the States, and the Federal Government have reached an agreement 
which I believe is more than adequate, why does the State of Utah 
think they know any better. It appears to me that the State of Utah 
is merely trying to find some deep pockets to reach into, and it has 
not be shown that the citizens of this state have been damaged by 
the practices of Microsoft, therefore I demanded, in writing to the 
AG of Utah, that the State of Utah cease this action at once.
    I have been involved in the development of software for a number 
of years, and I believe that the solution that is on the table with 
it's attendant monitoring will provide adequate controls in the 
future without hindering Microsoft's ability to develope software 
and products which are required for this country to maintain it 
dominate world-wide position in this most important industry.



MTC-00013953

From: Derrick Eisenhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:10pm
Subject: Missing Item
    Microsoft has a habit of buying innovative companies to either 
kill the product or incorporate it into the Windows OS. This does 
nothing but hurt the advancement of technology leaving all 
innovation to pretty much just Apple.
    There should be some sort of ruling that blocks Microsoft from 
buying companies at will without serious review as to how it will 
use the intellectual property it buys.
    Thanks



MTC-00013954

From: Annaleah Atkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams;
    It is very wrong to allow Microsoft to foist it's computers on 
our schools, effectively taking away the choice of which system will 
be used by our children. In our open market it is vital to have 
choices, and the school systems that prefer Macintosh or Linux will 
no longer have a choice.
    Microsoft needs to cough up the cash and let the schools decide 
what they need, please don't let this get crammed down our throats.
    Thank you,

[[Page 25861]]

    Joshua Atkinson



MTC-00013955

From: Lawrence MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    The Microsoft litigation must be brought to an end.The 
settlement terms seem fair to all parties concerned and it is 
important that this long standing matter be brought to a conclusion 
for the good of the economy and the country.
    Lawrence E. MacDonald
    Crossville, TN.



MTC-00013956

From: Andr(00E9) Bakker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:54pm
Subject: FW: MICROSOFT is a monopoly!!!
    My opinion is that microsoft is a monopoly and that they 
problably bribed their way out of the class action case



MTC-00013957

From: Debra Shaffer
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Debra Shaffer
532 Turkey Lane
Fountain Inn, SC 29644
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Shaffer



MTC-00013958

From: Barbara Lawrence
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Lawrence
P.O. Box 90536
Honolulu, HI 96835
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 L Lawrence



MTC-00013959

From: Lloyd Briley
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lloyd Briley
2101 Mark Twain Drive
Antioch, CA 94531-8304
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Lloyd D. briley



MTC-00013960

From: Joyce Kelly
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Kelly
216 Tom Bell Rd. 153
Murphys, CA 95247-9643
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Kelly



MTC-00013961

From: Jimmie Lindersmith
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/19/02  12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thank you for the opportunity for public comment on the Justice 
Department's settlement agreement with Microsoft. Please make mine a 
``yes'' vote for the settlement.
    Microsoft has agreed to terms in the settlement that go beyond 
the charges in the lawsuit in an effort to settle the case and move 
on. Microsoft has answered the complaint that I have heard over and 
over

[[Page 25862]]

again about the inability of Windows users to operate non-Microsoft 
programs within the Windows system.
    The terms in the agreement are fair to all parties represented 
in the lawsuit. I would like to see this case finally settled and 
satisfied.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Jimmie Lindersmith



MTC-00013962

From: matt webb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  11:58pm
Subject: unhappy with microsoft!
    microsoft needs to have a stronger penalty applied to them, 
while i myself am a windows user, microsofts behavior about their 
actions is very unbecoming. . .  you may one day hear the argument 
``just because we make the most popular lighter in the business, 
doesnt mean that we have a monopoly on the lighter industry''. . but 
when the microsoft corporation adopted the attitude ``we are the 
best, to he** with the rest'', thats pitiful, it shows that they 
have no desire for competition, they WANT to be a monopoly, period. 
.



MTC-00013963

From: LaneStacy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:07am
Subject: Microsoft Agreement
    I just want to say that I have owned every copy of MS Windows 
since Windows 286. I refuse to go farther. Each release includes 
more bloated garbage that is just enough to put legitmate software 
vendors out. How does one compete with free? The free software 
agreement is like Wal-Mart giving its employees a discount. They 
work for x dollars then give it back to the company for goods that 
were purchased wholesale. Through this arrangement, Wal-Mart gets a 
90% mark up, keeps its money in house and pays a reduced price for 
labor. The same goes for Microsoft, they get to spread their wares, 
thus taking away potential sales from other companies, get free 
advertisement through the youth of the contry, and pay with 
intellectual property that has no tangible value. What a bargain for 
Microsoft. Hit them where it hurts. Give people a smaller Windows 
and take the cash from Bill and Company. Better yet, have them pay 
in precious metals. I have decided to hurt them where it counts by 
exercising my consumer choice. I have begun selling all of my PC's 
and just purchased a new Macintosh with no MS software installed. In 
addition, I feel that they have encroached in everyday life too 
much. The Passport program is a fine example. Why would I want to 
give someone like a large corporation all of my financial data for 
``safe keeping?'' XP and the ``.NET'' strategy is another joke. When 
did software become a corporate lease. In the good old days one 
purchased a software product and it was his free and clear. Has 
Washington lost its mind? Why don't they start issuing titles and 
get the bureaucrats involved? We the people can start paying a 
yearly tax to hold a valid computer software use license as well. 
Where will it stop if you don't get involved and shut Microsoft's 
practices down? I urge you to come up with a more neutral and 
aggreeable settlement that has American business competition in the 
best interest.
    Thank you,
    Lane Spence



MTC-00013964

From: Jim Botts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:14am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Don't ever give up: WE can beat this.
    Jim and Shirley Botts



MTC-00013965

From: Gail Watts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I like to sleep well at night knowing 
that I live in a country which creates rulings and laws which are 
fair to all involved. I think this country has been through enough 
with all the recent events especially the September 11th crisis. 
Please settle the Microsoft Case so we can all get a good night's 
sleep. I think this company has made a fair offering which will 
benefit everyone. In my experiences with life, I've learned that you 
just can not please everyone. So, if the majority of states accept 
the Microsoft proposal, go with it. Thank you. P. G. Watts



MTC-00013966

From: Keith Joyner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:18am
    Microsoft settlement question
    I briefed the settlement information as presented and felt the 
duration of five years was insufficient. Their misdeeds have been 
going on far longer then that. I may have missed it, but I did not 
see a penalty for their illegal business activities. There should be 
a substantial penalty. I am saying this as a stock holder in 
Microsoft! But I would like to see the company remain honest and 
responsible in the years to come.
    Keith Joyner
    11216 E. Dale Lane
    Scottsdale, AZ 85262
    480-419-0979



MTC-00013967

From: Clive M. Ebsen, CR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:51am
Subject: Microsoft
    I feel the punishment should be a breakup of the Company!!!!!!!!
    Clive M. Ebsen



MTC-00013968

From: Steve Seaquist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:00am
Subject: Nothing short of splitting the company will suffice
    Only if Microsoft is split at least 6 ways will other companies 
be able to compete against this evil, corrupt behemoth (*):
    (1) operating systems (Windows)
    (2) applications software (Office, MS Works, Publisher, etc)
    (3) hardware (X-Box, UltimateTV, Microsoft Mouse, etc)
    (4) development tools (Visual Basic, C++, SourceSafe, etc)
    (5) Internet products (MSN Messenger, Internet Explorer, 
BizTalk, etc)
    (6) Internet services (MSN, WebTV, Hotmail, etc)
    * Gates and Ballmer must sell their interests in all but one of 
these. Each of the companies must be prohibited from moving into the 
other 5 companies'' lines of business for at least 8 years.
    Only then would the resulting companies'' products stand or fall 
on their own merits, rather than be exalted to de facto standard 
status by the sheer weight of their company's position in the 
marketplace.
    AND ONLY IF OTHER COMPANIES CAN COMPETE WITH THEM WILL THEIR 
EVIL BUSINESS PRACTICES STOP.
    Because it lacks the element of returning the marketplace to 
competition, the current settlement proposal is no more likely to 
work than the appeasement of Hitler did before World War II.
    Steve Seaquist



MTC-00013969

From: Jonathan Ah Kit
To: Microsoft Tunney Act review
Date: 1/19/02  12:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Madam,
    Re: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the provisions of the proposed settlement as 
described at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2001/
9463.htm this afternoon. I feel while it is preferable to keep the 
company in one piece, it does not necessarily go far enough to 
encourage any major competition.
    The licensing provisions Microsoft have employed as described at 
http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter.html by CIO Magazine, appear 
to force customer loyalty by employing a type of subscription model 
not previously employed in most Windows software--last time I saw 
this model was on a telnet client a New Zealand government 
department bought for its mainframe.
    While its supposedly oppressive terms could actually be said to 
encourage purchases of competitors'' products, it still could 
potentially be a case of Microsoft Corporation attempting to use its 
hold on current users to force more money out of them [corporate 
users]. Its monopoly position in this case is a bit different. There 
are competitors in the ``office suite productivity software'' market 
to Microsoft Office, but StarOffice (and OpenOffice) and KOffice--
with the latter available for Microsoft's Windows grouping of 
operating systems--do not really have the profile due to Microsoft's 
Office offering being the de facto standard. Which makes education 
institutions, companies, non-profits as well as private individual 
people end up feeling compelled to take it.
    This is fine, to a point. Being a de facto standard due to its 
market share can be okay--if it is not priced crazily like CIO 
Magazine in the above-referenced article on licence schemes for 
Office describes. In

[[Page 25863]]

analogies, it is like buying a manual gear car versus an automatic 
gear car. As in, it would probably be fair to say most people buy a 
manual because it is the standard and virtually everybody (give or 
take) is trained to drive one. But, it doesn't force everybody to 
buy a manual-- not too much more expensive are equivalent automatic 
models. (Maybe people buy automatics for convenience and or ease, 
but that is out of the scope of this submission.)
    Credit where credit is due, though. Microsoft's New Zealand 
operation has issued a version of Microsoft Office, called 
``Microsoft Office XP Standard for Students and Teachers', selling 
for about NZD280 to NZD300, inclusive of 12.5% NZ Goods and Services 
Tax. It requires no student ID or letter proving employment before 
buying it, so would require a user's honesty before it is bought. 
(NB: For this package, Microsoft has defined student and teacher as 
either a student or teacher of any education institution, including 
primary, intermediate, middle and high schools, as well as tertiary 
institutions such as universities, polytechnics and what NZ calls 
``private training establishments''. It includes staff.) I would say 
that is still a high price for esentially a high price for private 
individual people to buy, however.
    Details: http://www.microsoft.com/nz/office/xp/forstudents/ 
(That also raises another issue, possibly out of the scope of this 
submission--piracy. Microsoft needs to adjust its curve of piracy 
versus pricing. Once it does so, there is a chance it can raise 
revenues. But as said, there is another story there.)
    Lastly, I have a note regarding a scheme tying New Zealand 
schools to Microsoft software. Software is a slightly fickle 
business, so I can see some justification in having this scheme, but 
because of its centralised procurement nature, it does not tend to 
give competitors a look-in.
    Details: http://www.microsoft.com/nz/presscentre/articles/2001/
september-18_schools.asp I trust that this is of some use to you.
    Regards,
    Jonathan Ah Kit.



MTC-00013970

From: Mary Glenn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:31am
Subject: Microsoft
    My name is Mary Glenn and I am a concerned citizen regrading 
Microsoft and the Proposed Final Judgement. i stand in opposition to 
allow Microsoft to continue as a monopoly. In this country we must 
protect the freedom and rights of business to grow and not be 
monopolized by one company or organization. We promote the rights of 
the big and small in this country. and monopolies virtually 
eliminate competition and the ability for us as citizens to choose.
    I encourage and urge you to reconsider this Proposed Final 
Judgement and rather judge in a way that promotes freedom for all 
organizations not just the one with the most power and money. thank 
you for your consideration.
    Mary Glenn
    146 S. Berkeley Ave.
    Pasadena, CA 91107
    626-825-6432



MTC-00013971

From: Ray Petrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider this REUTERS NEWS Release. SEATTLE, Jan 17 
(Reuters)--Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) on Thursday posted a smaller 
quarterly net profit -- the result of a $660 million legal charge...
    The subtle message is that no matter what additional judgment 
might occur the lawyers of this country will be the big winners and 
certainly not consumers. That goes for lawyers employed on both 
sides of this fight. Consumers could probably have benefited more by 
having Microsoft focus more on its work of creating software and 
from the cost savings that might have been, at least in some small 
measure, passed on to consumers. Stockholders would have benefited 
and that means that a million households would probably have a bit 
more in this weak economy. And any number of children will receive 
somewhat less from the Gates Foundation in years to come. You can be 
cynical and scoff at my premise but you are probably ignoring facts 
that are easy to prove. Consumers by and large don't feel put upon 
by Microsoft or they would not have bought 15 million copies of 
Windows XP and 1.5 million units of XBox. Consumers are happy with 
Microsoft just as it is or was while some Microsoft competitors feel 
that there chances to gain market share are better with government 
punishment of Microsoft than the chances their products and services 
offer.
    Move on to more important work with more egregious offenders.
    Respectfully,
    R. Petrone, P.E.



MTC-00013972

From: Tim Sprandel
To: Microsoft ATR,Freedom To Innovate.
Date: 1/19/02  1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs or Madams, Please end the Microsoft controversy as 
soon as possible in order to return the Department of Justice and 
its Public Servants to the pressing matters of the Nation and to 
free the resources at Microsoft to invent new technology that may 
help the United States economy return to prosperity. I fully believe 
that the framers of The Constitution of the United States did not 
intend for our nation's government to become as large and involved 
as it has in so many places. I would feel much better if the 
personnel currently assigned to the Microsoft case were reassigned 
to locate and prosecute the insidiously evil terrorists that have 
managed to establish themselves here in our homeland. Preventing the 
loss of innocent lives is a far better pursuit and use of tax 
dollars.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Ralph Timothy Sprandel
    P.O. Box 181
    Addison, Illinois, 60101-0181



MTC-00013973

From: Cheri and Michael Kinzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement agreement is just plain wrong. It is far too 
weak, and achieves nothing for the American people. It is, in fact, 
an embarassing capitulation to corporate power.
    The Justice Department tried this once before, to no avail 
whatsoever. How many times must we watch Microsoft expand its 
monopoly powers into new markets before something is truly done to 
put a stop to it. I can see that this administration has no interest 
in pursuing a breakup of Microsoft. That's too bad. Standard Oil's 
monopoly prior to its breakup was nothing close to the kind of 
damage and power abuses Microsoft has wielded. The same can be said 
for old Ma Bell, when it was broken up. Both of those were good 
things. Okay, you will not seriously consider doing what should be 
done: breaking up the big monopolistic 8000 pound gorilla So be it. 
That doesn't end the matter, though.
    There is nothing about Microsoft which excuses what it has done 
and continues to do the technology sector. Have you noticed the 
price of the new XP system.Do you remember when Operating Systems 
upgrades cost $20 or $30 dollars. Now, Windows upgrades cost $200 or 
$300, and that has nothing to do with inflation-- it is the direct 
result of monopoly power. If Microsoft is this bold with squeezing 
every dollar it can even though its case is not settled, what do you 
think it will do after it settles this case. When all its 
competitors are completely erased (e.g. Apple, Linux) and there are 
no viable consumer options, what do you think Microsoft will do to 
increase earnings in a flat sales market. it will continue to 
squeeze OEMs, software licensees, consumers, all of us. Its not too 
late to put a stop to it, but it must be done now, before we have no 
choice whatsoever.



MTC-00013974

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  3:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    332 U.S. 392, 401 (1947); United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 
F.3d 34, 103, 107 (DC Cir. 2001). Restoring competition is the ``key 
to the whole question of an antitrust remedy,'' du Pont, 366 U.S. at 
326.
    Competition was injured in this case principally because 
Microsoft's illegal conduct maintained the applications barrier to 
entr...'' What, may I ask, does ordering Microsoft to equip schools 
with second hand or discounted software and hardware systems do to 
increase competition? I submit that this only strengthens the 
monopoly position of Microsoft at the expense of open competition 
from other suppliers. It is a slap in the face of every hard working 
employee at a competing company to watch Microsoft deduct from their 
income taxes the value of the software/hardware the U.S. government 
essentially directed Microsoft to donate into a market (schools) 
where they presently do not demonstrate a monopoly.
    These are not ``anti trust remedies'' as referenced in the 
extract of the Department of Justice's own website.

[[Page 25864]]

    It cannot be denied that Microsoft was found guilty. From the 
actions of the Department of Justice, it would almost seem as though 
the DOJ is apologizing to Microsoft for the slap it on the wrist it 
has proposed. As an abusive power, Microsoft is as important today 
as the DuPonts or railroads were of yesterday. The leader of our 
information society is a monopolist, and a dangerous one at that.
    Do not coddle a tyrant.
    Respectfully,
    Jeff Taarud
    2424 Montgomery Ave.
    San Diego,
    California 92007



MTC-00013975

From: David W. Polta
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David W. Polta
1031 E. Hermosa Street
Santa Maria, CA 93454
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. Polta



MTC-00013976

From: Warren Hilliard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren Hilliard
PO Box 64448
Sunnyvale, CA 94088-4448
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Warren Hilliard



MTC-00013977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Welter
515 Defoe Dr.
Columbia, Mo 65203
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Welter



MTC-00013978

From: James Botts
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Botts
1006 Little Ave.
Grandview, MO 64030-2447
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    JIM & Shirley Botts



MTC-00013979

From: Edmund H. III Elkins
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/18/02  10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edmund H. III Elkins
222 Champion Dr. NW
Cleveland, TN 37312
January 18, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
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 25865]]

progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than 
bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners and losers 
on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Edmund H. Elkins III



MTC-00013980

From: The Rev. Tony Begonja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: While the proposed settlement is a 
start, it is only a start. By itself, it functions as a weak ``hand-
slap''. I strongly urge USDOJ to also ask the judge to impose a ten 
billion dollar fine on Microsoft. THAT would send the message to 
Microsoft that truly needs to be sent!
    The Very Rev. Tony Begonja
    Presbyter-Priest-Pastor, Researcher, Webmaster, Author



MTC-00013981

From: Helmut Kobler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    When are you guys going to grow some backbone and put Microsoft 
in its place?????
    They're making a mockery out of the justice system. We all know 
they broke the law re monopolistic practices, and they're now 
reaping the benefits of Windows'' dominance in just about every 
field of computer tech. The latest proposed settlement was an 
absolute joke. Not only was it paltry (given that the company's 
illegal practices have made it richer than Midas) but they have the 
gaul to propose giving away a bunch of hardware/software to schools, 
so they look like heroes, and further undermine the position of a 
rare competitor (Apple).
    If anything **close** to this settlement is ever accepted by the 
government, **you will all be laughing stalks in the eyes of 
history**. You'll make Neville Chamberlain look like a tough guy. If 
you had any guts, you'd realize that Microsoft needs to be BROKEN UP 
or SERIOUSLY CURTAILED in its current businesses, to make up for all 
that it gained by breaking the rules years ago. They are now 
absolutely dominant in operating systems, application software, 
enterprise/networking (what ever happened to Novell?). They're 
threatening to dominate handheld operating systems (seriously 
threatening Palm, due to synergies with Windows), consumer online 
services (threatening AOL, due to synergies with their OS and apps), 
and video games (seriously challenging Sony and Nintendo, and 
benefiting from their brand name, and the fact a lot of Windows 
technology has been leveraged into the Xbox). Most of what they do 
these days leverages off of technologies and business dominance they 
already have, and so they'll keep getting bigger and crushing more 
companies.
    Please do something. Make the country believe that you're not 
just some mild-mannered caretaker, trying not to rock the boat. What 
good are you if you can't perform when push comes to shove??
    Helmut Kobler



MTC-00013982

From: berkjen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, My name is Inez Jensen. I am a resident of 
St. James, Missouri. I am writing to ask that the Justice Department 
implement the settlement recently reached with Microsoft. Under this 
settlement, Microsoft has agreed not to enter into any agreement 
that requires a company to distribute Windows exclusively. Microsoft 
has also agreed to license its Windows systems to computer makers on 
the basis of a uniform pricing list. I applaud Microsoft for these 
concessions. I know that this has been a difficult case for you, 
especially since it was not one of your making. Please take this 
opportunity to resolve the case on what I consider to be very fair 
and equitable terms.
    Thank you for your consideration and attention.
    Sincerely,
    Inez Jensen
    137 Burchwood Drive
    St. James, MO 65559



MTC-00013983

From: Joseph Carrier
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  6:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Carrier
4402 Parker
Dearborn Heights, Mi 48125-2235
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Carrier



MTC-00013984

From: Kirk Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  6:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kirk Smith
3108 Avents Ferry Road
Sanford, NC 27330
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement: The Microsoft trial squandered 
taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to consumers, and a serious 
deterrent to investors in the high-tech industry. It is high time 
for this trial, and the wasteful spending accompanying it, to be 
over. Consumers will indeed see competition in the marketplace, 
rather than the courtroom. And the investors who propel our economy 
can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Kirk D. Smith



MTC-00013986

From: John Dwight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams, While the proposed settlement of UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant, 
Civil Action No. 98-1232 goes a ways towards offering relief for 
OEMs, I believe the public and OEMS will still be in endangered 
unless two critical areas are addressed and awarded justice and 
relief. They are
    1. The deep entrenchment of Microsoft operating systems in the 
Federal Government. and
    2. Microsoft, The Public Internet, and Microsoft's .NET 
Initiative.
    Item 1: While the government has been slow to recognize and act 
regarding the abuse in connection with the monopoly of Microsoft in 
the crucial area of operating systems, with the advancement of this 
suit and the absolute documentation of Microsoft abuse of it's 
monopoly position progress can now be made.

[[Page 25866]]

    For the Federal Government to recognize and acknowledge the long 
standing harm done to the public, said OEMs and competitors by the 
abuse of monopoly power by the Microsoft Corp. on the one hand, and 
on the other to openly and actively promote the Microsoft operating 
systems in it's daily operation is a hypocritical and a huge 
miscarriage of justice.
    Recommended solution: Set an example for the public and remove 
the offending Microsoft products from the Federal purchasing system 
or encourage the use of alternatives by enforcing the requirement of 
a serious justification for the purchase of new Microsoft products 
and continued use of legacy Microsoft products with an aim to the 
eventual removal of Microsoft operating systems from the Federal 
Government. Or simply ban the use of Microsoft products by the 
Federal Gov't.
    At an anecdotal level, I am Federal employee of the Smithsonian 
Institution (henceforth referred to as S.I.) operating a web site on 
their behalf. I have viewed with alarm the increasing enforced 
reliance upon and blind insistence on the use and preference of 
Microsoft Operating systems for the operation of the Smithsonian's 
large and varied web presence. Documents available from the S.I. 
Webmasters office advise all of the many other S.I. webmasters to 
switch to Windows 2000 and the Microsoft Internet Information Server 
web server software (henceforth referred to as IIS). This despite 
daily documentation by the expert public at large that IIS is the 
least secure method of operating a web site, as well as the most 
expensive system when support costs are accounted for. This is a 
blatant tactic on the S.I.'s part to pander to and court a huge 
potential donor, Microsoft, as well as a shameful waste of public 
moneys. The appearance and encouragement of Gov't. collusion with a 
known abusive and criminal monopolist is offensive, unjust, and 
unwise.
    Item 2: Microsoft's pattern of behavior in it's destruction of 
WordPerfect, and Netscape, it's elimination of Apple's ubiquitous 
QuickTime video from serious competition is again evident in it's 
proposed .NET initiative, with the eventual removal of freedoms and 
choice from the Internet -using public as it's aim. Clearly 
Microsoft has shown no remorse for it's actions. The concepts behind 
the .Net initiative must be studied and finally outlawed if the 
public is to avoid paying an ``Internet tax'' to the Microsoft Corp. 
in the future.
    Sincerely,
    John Dwight
    webmaster
    National Museum of the American Indian--a Smithsonian 
Institution



MTC-00013987

From: Roger Morse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing what I know about the settlement Microsoft 
offered and the judge's comments on it, I do believe that while 
Microsoft had the right idea, it just went about it the wrong way. 
Since the proposed breakup of the company probably won't happen, 
this might be the best answer. However, ANY solution must cripple 
Microsoft's ability to dominate the computer industry and place 
restraints on it's ability to weld what influence it has.
    I do agree that the public school-oriented part Microsoft's 
settlement was underfunded and that the potential for mismanagement 
would be great. This is why the amount should be increased and the 
management should be taken over by a third party. The most 
interesting part of the public school-oriented section is the 
donation of several PC's (with Windows software, of course) to the 
schools. While alternatives, such as Apple computers, were offered, 
the support and software were lacking, to say the least. This would 
actually increase Microsoft's domination of the computer market and 
allow them a huge chunk of the prized education market that Apple 
Computers still dominates.
    My solution to this is that while Microsoft continues with the 
``donation'' to the education field, the amount should be increased 
and the management turned over to a third party. The other part of 
the solution is that the fund will be used to buy Apple computer 
equipment and software. This should include iMacs & PowerMac desktop 
computers, iBook and Powerbook notebooks and Apple's AirPort 
wireless network system.
    Since the education market uses Apple computers heavily, this 
will be no great conversion to them. And since the Macintosh 
operating system supports using Windows disks, files, and networks, 
it can be intergrated with schools already using some Windows 
machines and student with Windows computers at home can still take 
homework files home and use them. The only allowance for Microsoft 
will be to offer the Macintosh version of Microsoft Office, which 
will make it easier for students to take files home to use. 
Otherwise, there is an incredible amount of education software for 
the Macintosh system, so there should be no lack of software offered 
through the settlement. Tech support can be handled by Apple's 
already well-established education division. Oh, yes, and the prices 
for this hardware and software should be calculated at the education 
sales price, not the retail sales price.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Morse
    ``When I became a man, I put away childish things, including the 
fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.''--C. S. 
Lewis



MTC-00013988

From: NKM
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir: From a consumer point of view. Microsoft has 
provided both positive and not so positive influence in the software 
industry. Microsoft has made software easy to use for non-technical 
people and eliminated chaos of uncontrolled software anarchy. On the 
not so positive side, from the consumer point of view, the pricing 
of Microsoft product is not as low as what I would like and it is 
generally accepted that Microsoft product, between ease of use and 
technical advancement, is more towards the ease of use side.
    What I would like for the whole software industry is:
    1. Do not force the consumer to pay a regular annual fee, either 
through ``subscription'' pricing modeling, or through ``engineered 
obsolescence''.
    2. Allow consumer to control the behavior of software on their 
machines.
    3. Licensed software should respect the Rights of Privacy, same 
as an employee should respect an employer's Rights of Privacy.
    Very Sincerely,
    Norman K. Ma
    6428 Dunmoor Drive
    Plano, TX 75093



MTC-00013989

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern; In my opinion, it would be in the best 
interest if all States were required to accept the DoJ's settlement 
plans for the Microsoft case. It would be in the best interest of 
the economy for all States of the United States. Thank you for you 
time and consideration in this matter. Let's get this behind us and 
get the United States on the path to recovery.
    Lonnie J Cismowski



MTC-00013990

From: Lynne LaMaster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to comment that I see no way in which this 
settlement addresses the concerns in the original suit, and it does 
nothing to alleviate the damages caused by the anti-competitive 
nature of the Microsoft business practices. Please rework this 
settlement to benefit a company other than Microsoft.
    Lynne LaMaster, ASE, APP
    ACE: Photoshop, GoLive



MTC-00013991

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:35am
Subject: United States v. Microsoft
    As a citizen, I would like to make my comments about this case. 
I have been in the computer field for over 7 years.
    First, the largest portion of the ``penalty'' is in licensing 
costs. How much is Microsoft really losing by ``donating'' these 
licenses? It's already been stated that these are under-privileged 
schools which probably couldn't afford to buy computers and software 
on their own. Microsoft is simply getting increased market 
penetration with minimal loss of revenue. I think I read that 
support contracts for these schools would be negotiated and given a 
discounted rate, (i.e. not free). Anything they would lose in 
licensing they're going to make up in new support contracts.

[[Page 25867]]

    Secondly, it's a well established marketing strategy to give 
software to schools so the students learn the applications, then 
take that into the marketplace when they look for a job. For 
exmaple, Adobe has used this for a great advantage. Ignoring the 
fact that PhotoShop and Illustrator are supremely awesome 
applications, they give the software away to universities so the 
majority of graduates know these packages. This encourages companies 
recruiting graphic artists to use these applications because there's 
no learning curve for new hires. The CEO or RedHat made a public 
offer to donate the Operating Systems (OS) for these machines *with 
support* and Microsoft could donate just the hardware. This would 
mean more schools would get computers and Microsoft would not be 
furthering their own interests. Please consider this CEO's offer and 
put another OS on these systems (ie. not Microsoft)!
    Finally, the debate on whether or not they have a monopoly is 
closed, the courts already ruled that they do! Not only do they have 
the monopoly, but they've abused it and that's why we are discussing 
their punishment. I hope you will consider a stronger punishment for 
Microsoft!!



MTC-00013992

From: Joseph T. Kwasniak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The people in the DOJ are just plain stupid. I am sick of the 
DOJ spending taxpayer money on this litigation. I'ts time now to 
focus on something important, like freezing the personal bank 
acounts of Enron CEO's who sold billions of dollars of Enron stock 
when the employees were helpless in their situtation. Let the DOJ 
get some of the employees money back or don't regular people count?



MTC-00013993

From: Craig S. Kauffman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir--As a long time Netscape user I have always found 
Microsoft Window program easy to install Netscape and use Netscape's 
internet program. This automatically places AOL on my desk top which 
I have never wanted but it causes no harm. I do not see where 
Microsoft has been doing anything different than is being done by 
other businesses, and is the recognized norm for our capitalistic 
business society. Let us not persecute businesses because they are 
good. I believe we should give Microsoft honors for greatly 
improving our life and at a very small cost to the users.
    Yours truly, Craig S. Kauffman



MTC-00013994

From: Alan Hagerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department. . . . .I am writing in support of the 
Microsoft settlement. This trial has gone on too long, has cost the 
taxpayers and investors too much and should be closed out as soon as 
possible. Thank you for asking our opinions.
    Sincerely, Alan Hagerman, 5460 Wells Curtice Road, Canandaigua, 
NY 14424 585-394-3308
    CC:cpnys,Alan L Hagerman,Earl Bixby,Robert Fackler,Bo. . . 



MTC-00013995

From: Brian Nelson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not allow them to ``donate'' PCs and software, at a minimum.
    Break Microsoft up. . . it will only make them better.
    Case in point: Breakup of AT&T required them to divest 
themselves of the Unix operating system. Unix has become the unsung 
hero of Internet server reliability. AT&T long distance phone 
service is increasingly losing ground to Internet services at a 
benefit to all of the USA. Break up Microsoft into three units: 
Productivity software (Office et al), Operating systems, and 
certification/education; and, force them to create new divisions for 
``other'' categories or divest themselves of ``other''catagories. 
The next winnners for investors, citizens, and business will come 
from the ``other'' categories.
    Brian Nelson
    Systems Administrator
    Dept of Computer Science
    University of ******



MTC-00013996

From: Ken Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would be glad to give you my opinion of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    It is, by definition insane. Someone has said that repeatedly 
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result 
is insanity. Let us not forget that Microsoft is in court for 
violating their last consent decree. Do you really expect them to 
abide by this one. The only reason they have agreed to this decree 
is that it is vague and flexible enough to allow them to do what 
they want while the lawyers argue about the details until reversing 
their actions would be harmful to the country.
    If you think that the public (at least the computer literate 
ones) don't see this for exactly what it is, you are more arrogant 
or more uninformed than I thought.
    Ken Ward
    Ward Studios
    [email protected]
    ``Let us so endeavor so to live that when we come to die, even 
the undertaker will sorry.''
    Mark Twain



MTC-00013997

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is in support of Microsoft's proposed settlement of their 
long-term antitrust case. I heard my Attorney General Blumenthal 
(Connecticut) speak yesterday on this issue and it appears that he 
does not wish to compromise and settle this. I belive it is time to 
settle; for the good of the country, Microsoft and it's competitors, 
and for senior citizens such as myself (72) who are minor 
shareholders of not only Microsoft, but also Oracle, Sun, and other 
tech stocks that have tumbled drastically in price. The courts have 
had to make the compromises so far in this case and have reduced the 
adversaries to a few states who, under the guise of high principle, 
seem to refuse to give an inch for what I think are very selfish 
interests. It's high time to stop this now, with the limitations 
already in place to curtail Microsoft's questkionable actions while 
still keeping open the legal marketing initiatives that Microsoft 
and it's competiors may want to use. John McDonald, 34 Baywater Dr., 
Darien, CT 06820



MTC-00013998

From: David M Lazor Sr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:07pm
Subject: Comments on U.S. vs. Microsoft! It's time to resolve and 
put this to an end!
1/19/2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
    I believe that Microsoft, since its inception has consistently 
provided the consumer with the best value, best innovation, and best 
productivity compared with the competition. This holds true not only 
for the American economy but also the world economy.
    Historical facts prove this point. When Microsoft created their 
first operating system PC DOS/IBM DOS and brought it to market in 
1981, the cost was about $60; the two competitors Digital Research 
(CPM) and USC-P cost to consumers was about $120 and $400, 
respectively. There was some question about there ability to be 
``Fast-to-market'' also.
    The word processing application available for the IBM PC was 
WordStar. Shortly after, Microsoft came out with MS-Word 1.0; they 
included a copy free in a PC Magazine issue for trial. This 
impressed me as a consumer as innovative marketing. Besides the 
early product from a user standpoint was far superior to any 
existing competitive product from ease of use to improved 
productivity. This superior innovation from Microsoft and its 
partners in a highly competitive environment has continued over the 
last 20 years.
    I believe Microsoft has not behaved in an anti-competitive way; 
but, rather in a highly competitive, innovative way to provide 
consumers and businesses a highly reliable and productive way to 
operate second to none.
    They and partners (Intel, IBM, HP, Compaq, others)seized a new 
and ``disruptive technology'', ``The Christianson Effect''(Harvard), 
and continuously improved there products and services over time 
resulting in creating an industry, or at least

[[Page 25868]]

a major segment. Those partners and competitors who couldn't keep up 
with the velocity of providing the marketplace with superior 
innovation and productivity lost their positions at least in the 
short-run. The name of the game is sustained, high velocity 
innovation and productivity, and Microsoft, Intel, and many others 
have delivered over the last 20+ years. This force has been a major 
component in growing our economy over the last 20+ years.
    Regarding, the case of the 9 States settlement with Microsoft, I 
believe this is fair and needs to be settled. This entire fiasco 
over the last several years has cost the taxpayers far too much. 
It's time to settle and put those who think litigation is the 
American way in their place. Litigation only helps the lawyers and 
parasites who want to get a free ride. Prolonged litigation doesn't 
help the American economy or taxpayer.
    It's time to resolve and put this to an end.
    David M Lazor Sr



MTC-00013999

From: Jon Grizzle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:04pm
Subject: Fw: A FINFLASH FROM THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE NETWORK A 
FINFlash Alert: January 28 Deadline for comments to DoJIncluded in 
this e-mail is an e-mail received and will not add to Block Sender 
list when I ask. More of these mail type have been sent lately.
    Why does Microsoft allow some users of e-mail to send unwanted 
mail that Microsoft's Outlook Express will not add to the Block 
Sender utility? Has Microsoft sold out some of their software 
security and compromises e-mail secure?
    Since I'm using all Microsoft software components I can say 
there are wholes and hooks been designed and sold to invade on user 
privacy.
    Regards,
    Unhappy user of E-mail
    Jon Grizzle
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 12:03 PM
Subject: A FINFLASH FROM THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE NETWORK A FINFlash 
Update: Settlement News--Public can Comment in Antitrust Matter; 
Class-Actions Suit Returns to Litigation
    Deadline Nears for Public Comment on Antitrust Settlement
    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 indeed in the 
public interest.
    The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to 
all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of Appeals 
ruling. Still, while consumers overwhelmingly agree that settlement 
is good for them and the American economy, and overwhelmingly want 
to move beyond this litigation, nine states have refused to join the 
settlement. 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.
    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. Concerned 
citizens already have begun submitting their comments about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated.
    The Department of Justice will take all public comments and 
viewpoints and include them in a report 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: mailto:[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 review 
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.
    Class-action Lawsuit Returns to Litigation
    Friday, January 11, U.S. District Judge J. Fredrick Motz 
rejected a settlement that would have resolved more than 100 private 
class-action lawsuits filed against Microsoft in the wake of the 
1999 decision issued by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during the 
trial court phase of the federal antitrust lawsuit.
    Under the proposal's terms, Microsoft would have given 
disadvantaged public schools more than $1 billion in funding, 
software, services and training, and around 1 million Windows 
licenses for renovated PCs.
    Microsoft, who sought input from educators on specific terms of 
the agreement, will review the court's opinion and at the same time 
move forward with the next steps in the litigation while we continue 
to look for reasonable ways to resolve the matter.



MTC-00014000

From: Brian Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I believe that the only possible settlement that will restore 
innovation and competition to the market is a breakup of Microsoft 
into two completely independent companies with identical product 
lines and equal access to all of Microsoft's current patents, 
copyrights and other intellectual property. The first should be run 
by the current management and the second should be sold on the 
market at the current share price only to people and companies who 
do not have any current stake in Microsoft. No company in which 
Microsoft has a controlling interest should be allowed to invest in 
the new company. Joint shareholding should be absolutely prohibited. 
Your attention to this proposal would be greatly appreciated. 
Sincerely yours, Brian Walsh



MTC-00014001

From: Richard Royce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to give my strong support to your settlement reached 
with the Microsoft Corporation. It is tough but fair, and there are 
far more important and relevant anti-trust and related issues to 
focus on.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Royce
    1 Greenbriar Drive
    Summit, NJ 07901



MTC-00014002

From: Charles Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:14pm
Subject: microsoft settelment
    IT IS MY BELIEF ,AS A CONSUMER, THAT MICROSOFT MUST BE BROKEN 
INTO SEVERAL DIVISIONS.THEIR SIZE HAS LED THEM TO BELIEVE THAT THEY 
ARE ABOVE THE THE LAW AND EVEN MORE FRIGHTNING THEY ARE RUTHLESS IN 
STOPPING COMPETETION.
    IN RECENT ACTIONS MICRESOFT HAS BEEN TRYING TO CRUSH AN UPSTART 
COMPANY ,LINDOWS, THAT HAS DEVELOPED AN OPERATING SYSTEM THAT WILL 
RUN MOST PROGRAMS THAT HAD TO BE RUN ON MICROSOFTS WINDOWS 
ENVIORMENT. THEY ARE NOW IN COURT TRYING TO STOP THE RELEASE BY 
SAYING IT LOOKS TOO MUCH LIKE XP. THEY HAVE ALSO HAD THE COURTS GIVE 
THEM ALL E-MAILS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE CONTACTED LINDOWS. IS THIS MENT 
TO INTIMIDATE CONSUMERS?????? CHARLES B. COLLINS 
[email protected]



MTC-00014003

From: Tom Sandholm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir(s),
    I am glad to see that Massachusetts abstained from signing the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. The original proposal falls far short 
of providing protection for consumers as well as promoting open and 
fair competition with computer vendors.
    The new proposal will, hopefully, enable fair and open 
competition for other software vendors, as well as provide the 
necessary knowledge to software developers and computer programming 
students at our educational institutions, without imposing heavy 
licensing fee's for missing, shoddy and often incorrect 
documentation that Microsoft has sold at outrageous fee's in the 
past. The requirement of Microsoft to document their products 
programming interfaces should be placed in public access. I want to 
point out that most major computer vendors, for example IBM and Sun 
Microsystems, currently provide programming information for their 
operating systems, often bundled into the core product, at no 
additional charge. This practice has enabled other

[[Page 25869]]

vendors to make their products available across platforms, and not 
just lock the product into one platform, so typical with Microsoft 
applications. Microsoft has intentionally radically changed 
programming interfaces between product releases, and severely 
restricted access to programming information to such a degree as to 
make it cost prohibitive or virtually impossible for 3rd party 
software developers to make their products available across both 
Unix and Microsoft platforms.
    In consideration of Microsoft's extremely poor implementation of 
security in their products, I would suggest an additional remedy of 
requiring a level of computer security exists in all future 
Microsoft products. I site the numerous security alerts that have 
been issued from CERT in regards to Microsoft IIS, as well as the 
office products. The recent release of Microsoft XP has also fallen 
to severe security holes, thereby leaving consumers quite vulnerable 
to hackers and identity theft. The security level enforcement could 
be monitored by an organization such as CERT (Computer Emergency 
Response Team, http://www.cert.org). CERT would require full 
unlimited access to all of the source code for Microsoft products. 
This would ensure consumer protection.
    In regard to the remedy of Microsoft applications working on 
other software platforms, I would encourage you to explicitly list 
the platforms, and not exclude Linux in the list.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely
    Thomas F. Sandholm
    453 Derry Road
    Chester, NH. 03036



MTC-00014004

From: Mike Ruebush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:32pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts on this 
topic. I think that this should be considered just a start. 
Microsoft controls far too much of the computer industry. It forces 
potential competitors to spend very large amounts of money and 
resources to follow along in its path, instead of developing new 
ideas and concepts. The first thing a competitor must ask when 
developing a new idea is not if this idea will help its potential 
customers, but if will be compatible in the Microsoft-dominated 
industry.
    Please think of the entire computer industry's health when 
considering any action regarding Microsoft.
    Thank you



MTC-00014005

From: KENNETH SMITH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:33pm
Subject: Stop the Microsoft suit
    Here is my vote to stop the Clinton era lawsuit against 
Microsoft.



MTC-00014006

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    This letter is in response to the request for public comment 
regarding the upcoming settlement of the Microsoft Litigation.
    As a practicing certified public accountant, I am struck by the 
uneven treatment that Microsoft seems to be receiving.
    As an instructor of Economics I have always used Microsoft as a 
shining example of Adam Smith's theory of the ``Invisible Hand'' ie. 
``entrepreneurs who, while acting in their own self-interest, create 
wealth for themselves, and in doing so benefit society as well''.
    I was struck by the behavior of the tax-paid legislators, who 
create no jobs, do nothing to increase the generation of tax 
revenues, and yet try to sit in judgement of the behavior of company 
who's only crime, seems to have been that they were too good at what 
it is they do! HOW IRONIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Public servants who 
live off the largesse of hardworking, tax-paying citizens are 
getting caught up in this whole notion that if the competion is too 
keen, then there must be something wrong with the manner in which 
they operate. It couldn't possibly be, that they possess such a 
unique understanding of the technology that is the lifeblood of 
their organization, or possess such a focused understanding of how 
they envision future technology impacting our lives, that the so-
called competition can't measure up.
    Yet as I watched the hearings and listened to the testimony of 
the various CEO's, I was saddened to see how very antagonistic the 
questioning of Bill Gates was. Orrin Hatch and his cohorts did 
themselves no favors, because in my eyes, it was an absolute 
travesty of justice to see them treating Mr. Gates as if he were 
some public enemy to be dealt with!!!!!
    While I do believe that no one should be above the law, I am 
reminded of the anti-trust action that was waged against IBM. It 
turned out to be nothing more than a real waste of taxpayers'' 
dollars.
    Had there been a judge, who was truly objective hearing the case 
to begin with, perhaps the findings would be viewed as credible, but 
since Thomas Penfield Jackson made it no secret, that he was sure 
that Microsoft surely did something dreadfully wrong and it was up 
to HIM to see that they were stopped no matter the cost to the 
consumer, I view the decision as flawed, and anything after it the 
same. As to the appeals court, while yes they did indeed come to the 
same conclusion, am I correct in understanding that no new 
information or evidence can be intro- duced at this time? If yes, it 
too is flawed, because you had an original trial record that 
reflects the actions and decisions of a biased judge.
    Finally, I am troubled by the lack of evidence that the consumer 
was somehow harmed???????????? No one has yet to prove that the lack 
of choice of operating systems is somehow bad! You have had Linux 
touted as both free, and more stable! Well it turns out that its not 
more stable and now the many companies who moved to its use are 
finding that the costs associated with system failures are greater 
and will probably change operating systems.
    If you follow this to its logical conclusion the benefits of a 
Microsoft with a superior product, used as a standard for an 
industry if of far more benefit to the consumer.
    The benefits are enormous to the industry as a whole, because 
software developers would rather support a product that commands a 
larger percentage of the total industry than a lot of competing 
products. In an economic sense this does indeed represent an 
efficient use of scarce resources. Apple computers made a very poor 
decision years ago, when it decided that its OS would not be 
compatible with any other. That decision would come back to haunt 
them for years. Why should I and many other taxpayers be forced to 
pay for their lack of understanding of the industry and its 
extremely competitive nature?
    I read recently that Sun Microsystems will not make its software 
compatible with Intel based systems because they can sell servers 
for $20,000. Yet if their computer language is compatible with an 
Intel based computer the result is the same equivalent system for 
$4,000. Are you going to go after them too?
    So you see the list of grievances can go on and on.
    I do believe that to force Microsoft to make their code 
available to competitors is nothing short of government sponsored 
theft. The nature of the technology industry is changing so fast 
that probably the product that caused this ill- conceived 
undertaking by the Department of Justice is now obsolete.
    As a taxpayer, I am disappointed that you are allowing all of 
these states to clamor for a piece of Microsoft as if they have all 
been harmed by them. Again, where is the proof of injury?
    Microsoft's not a chorus of choirboys and Bill Gates is no 
angel, but neither is Scott McNealy(Sun Microsystems),Larry 
Ellison(Oracle), John Chambers(Cisco) Craig Barrett(Intel)and yada 
yada yada.
    I would think that this current crisis of investor confidence 
created by the likes of Arthur Andersen and Enron reemphasize the 
real job of the DOJ.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this and I really hope you 
rethink this whole issue of what is the proper remedy.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014007

From: Yolanda R Hague
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:18pm
    Without taking up time and space to state the many paradigms 
that are common knowledge and support my request. I believe the 
interests of this country, its voters and taxpayers, are better 
served if the actions against Microsoft are terminated now.
    I am requesting that you give this your consideration I 
immediately.
    Yolanda R. Hague



MTC-00014008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a lifelong resident of Massachusetts and voted for our 
current Attorney General, However he should reconsider his stand on

[[Page 25870]]

the Microsoft Settlement as negotiated by the U. S. Government and 
accept it for my state.
    Michael F. Sypek



MTC-00014009

From: Ted Mruczkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:51pm
Subject: I support DOJ Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft, as US based corporation, shall be viewed as 
international resource. Acting in direction to limit or change 
capacity of Microsoft's workforce and its constructive influence on 
constant technology leverage ? might be only in minds of indulgent 
competitors. Negotiated settlement is in the best interest of mine 
and hundreds of thousands software developers who are relying on 
Microsoft well being.



MTC-00014010

From: attilioserafini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement of the Microsoft case(s) NOW is in the best interest 
of the public and especially the people that use computers. It is 
particularly important to people who use computers to conduct 
business. I run a small business and I believe that Microsoft will 
develop new and improved products at a faster rate when they are 
free of the distractions of these legal matters.
    Just a thought: What if the government had spent as much time, 
effort, and tax payers'' money dealing with ENRON in the public's 
interest, instead of going after the Microsoft Corporation? How many 
people would be better off today?
    Just a tax paying American who cares about what is right.



MTC-00014011

From: Kenneth Smith
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Smith
325 Kesselring Ave.
Dover, De 19904
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Rev. Kenneth B. Smith



MTC-00014012

From: C. D. Shepard
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C.D. Shepard
Box 459
Castle Rock, CO 80104-0459
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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.D. Shepard



MTC-00014013

From: Helen G Brown
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen G Brown
1600 Priscilla Ct
Forest Hill, MD 21050
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Helen G. Brown



MTC-00014014

From: Joseph Patterson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  11:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Patterson
4546 Elk Head Road
Bland, MO 65014
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 J Patterson

[[Page 25871]]



MTC-00014015

From: GEORGE LOSADA
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GEORGE LOSADA
2 PATRICIA PL.
MILLTOWN, NJ 08850-2137
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 D LOSADA



MTC-00014016

From: September West
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
September West
146 Roddau Court
Wright City, MO 63390-3947
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 & September West



MTC-00014017

From: Stanley W Thomas
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley W Thomas
203 Hickory Way
McCormick,, SC 29835-2728
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley W &Nancy G Thomas



MTC-00014018

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I feel that the November 2001 proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case is neither fair nor reasonable. It does 
not seem to do anything to prevent a continuation of their illegal 
activities. Given the dominance of the Microsoft operating systems, 
it seems only logical to split the company as previously proposed.
    Dana L. Roth
    2023 Rose Villa St.
    Pasadena, CA 91107



MTC-00014019

From: Julian Kovalsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that there should be a strict judgment against Microsoft.
    If it does not happen it just shows that if you have enough 
money to spend you can even buy the Government. I don't want to live 
in a Microsoft dominated world.
    I want there to be equality and fairness.
    Please give a harsh penalty for what they were already accused 
to have done.
    They are a monopoly.
    Julian Kovalsky
    940 N Sierra Bonita
    Los Angeles CA 90046



MTC-00014020

From: Bill Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is strongly recommended that language be inserted relieving 
America Online of any further obligation to use Microsoft originated 
software, support files, or code in their internet client software.
    Bill Wright
    PO Box 373
    Balboa Island, CA 92662



MTC-00014021

From: Warren Ponemon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren E. Ponemon
[email protected]
CIMCOR
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY SYSTEM, LLC
January 27,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I think that Microsoft is being far too generous in the recent 
antitrust case settlement. Microsoft in my opinion never made any 
antitrust violations. There positive contributions to our nation's 
economy have far outweighed any negative results of their actions. I 
am a proponent of free enterprise that thinks government should not 
interfere with the free market.
    Fortunately, the terms of the settlement do not break up 
Microsoft. They do however give away much of their technological 
secrets to competitors, such as internal interfaces and protocols.
    Microsoft has also agreed to not retaliate against software 
developers or computer makers that develop or promote software that 
competes with Microsoft products.
    Even though I think the settlement is flawed and unjustified, I 
also believe the settlement is in the bets interests of the American 
public because our nation cannot afford more litigation. We need our 
industry leaders innovating and growing to create jobs and more 
technological breakthroughs.

[[Page 25872]]

Please take a firm stance against the opposition and make sure this 
settlement becomes a reality.
    Sincerely,
    Warren E. Ponemon



MTC-00014022

From: Johanna Seth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:35pm
Subject: microsft settlement
Johanna Seth
14860 Summerlin Woods Dr. #16
Fort Myers, Florida 33919
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use a moment of my time to convey my support for the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice 
last year. I definitely believe this agreement is in the public 
interest and no further action is needed at the federal level.
    A brief review of the terms shows that Microsoft has agreed to 
many concessions that will require significant changes. One example 
regarding intellectual property rights illustrates this point. 
Microsoft has agreed that if a third party's exercise of any options 
provided for by the settlement would infringe any Microsoft 
intellectual property right, Microsoft will provide the third party 
with a license to the necessary intellectual property on reasonable 
and non-discriminatory terms. And to assure compliance with this and 
other provisions, a technical committee will monitor Microsoft.
    Finally, this settlement will allow the federal government to 
focus on more urgent matters than continuing this unneeded 
litigation. This includes helping to stimulate the economy and 
health care issues.
    Sincerely,
    Johanna Seth
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014023

From: David Salinas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think the DOJ's settlement was a debacle. It was clearly big 
money (the economy, or lack thereof) at work that influenced John 
Ashcroft's (Attorney General) decision to work out a deal with 
Microsoft.
    It seems as though Ashcroft's main interests was to close the 
case rather than offer a solution that was best for consumers.
    Here's my analogy. If a husband and wife are having martial 
problems. You just don't make a deal to stop fighting just for the 
sake of stopping the fighting. That's just putting off the problem.
    What you do is find out what's the cause of the conflict and 
then remedy that problem.
    Ashcroft wanted to save tax payer money by passing on the case 
to the States. He caved. He did not do his job. Sometimes I think 
that he took a poll to find out if the DOJ vs Microsoft case was 
high on the priority list of the American people. Well, if you take 
polls, you get inaccurate results. Also, as you might know, 
popularity votes are not the best way to come to a decision. If 
that's the case, then Elvis would have been the president in the 
60's. That's why we have the electoral college vote. The founding 
fathers knew that the majority of the people were too ignorant to 
make important decisions about our country.
    And this leads me to my point about Microsoft. Most people in 
the world, much less the US, know little about the unethical 
business practices of Microsoft. All they care about is surfing the 
web, or sending email. This is why the majority of the US populace 
show indifference toward the case. They just don't get it! Most 
people are NOT technologists, engineers, or IT professionals. I 
mean, ask the common Joe how to connect to the internet, he'll have 
to hire/ask a profession to show him how to do it. If a common 
consumer doesn't understand the technology he uses at home/work, 
then how do you expect them to understand the complexities of the 
Microsoft case?
    Licensing, XLM, HTML, .Net, Passport, GNU, GLP, cookies, 
security certificates, digital signatures, C#, Java, WMA, etc. are 
all technical jargon that can be spoken during the technical case. 
Do you honestly think that the majority of people know what these 
terms mean? If they don't, then how can they make a educated 
decision about a complex technical monopoly case?
    So, John Ashcroft basically made the decision to end the case 
for the DOJ because the American people really didn't understand it, 
or care about it (in the light of the 9/11 attacks, and the dot-com 
downturn).
    But, the Microsoft case has far reaching consequences if the 
necessary steps aren't taken to prevent Microsoft from abusing it's 
monopoly power in the future.
    I feel that the States proposal on what to do about Microsoft is 
a good proposal.
    Although some do not feel that it goes far enough (less a 
breakup). I believe that it cuts out all the potential loopholes 
that plague the current DOJ settlement (swiss cheese settlement).
    Microsoft should be under the spotlight for the next 10-15 years 
(or however long it takes).
    Every move they make, every deal they make are moves that they 
use to extend their power. And the scrutiny they will receive is 
justified.
    Microsoft has the power now. So, its the watchdogs of the tech 
world that will keep an eye on everything Microsoft does. Because 
the company with the power can abuse that power. And they have, in 
the past, in the present, and will continue to do so in the future 
unless they are watched and their behavior is curtailed.
    I end this letter with a question. . . .
    What's worse than a Government Big Brother?
    A Corporate Big Brother!



MTC-00014024

From: Brendan Irvine-Broque
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft needs to be penalized in a way that lets 
them continue production of all products other than their Windows 
operating system. The Windows operating system should be given a 
very large setback, such as limiting the amount of computers which 
it is shipped with each year, but products such as Microsoft Office 
should be left untouched. I have been a mac person for many years, 
and while I thoroughly detest the Windows operating system and the 
scams that have come with it, i greatly appriciate the benefits that 
Microsoft Office has given to the entire personal computing 
industry.
    At this point, almost everyone uses Microsoft Office, and it 
would be devastating if as a result of this antitrust suit, 
Microsoft would be forced to put less effort into the creation of 
newer versions of Office.
    Now, at the same time, this does not mean that I do not want 
Microsoft to be punished, because I think that it should be punished 
greatly for how it has not only hurt competing companies, but for 
how it has revoked the choice of operating system from the consumer. 
People can talk all day about the many alteritives to Windows, but 
the fact is that for the vast majority of users, there is no choice.
    Linux, the UNIX based Windows alternitive, has never been put 
into a standard version so that the average consumer can use it 
without spending hours of frustration trying to make it work. The 
Macintosh Operating System, especially with the amazing new Mac OS 
X, is thought of as a better operating system than Windows by 
critics and consumers, including PC users. But because of the 
Windows monopoly, it is still making a recovery to regain thousands 
of applications that it lost. I myself am an avid mac person, but 
just months ago I was forced to buy a new PC instead of a Macintosh 
because the server that I needed to access was running Microsoft 
software which my computer was not compatible with. It is sneaky 
tactics like this that have given Microsoft this monopoly.
    As for a solution for this problem, I am not sure what that 
might be, but what it should do is give other companies and other 
operating systems a chance to be equal with Windows instead of 
struggling to stay afloat.
    Thank you for listening,
    Brendan Irvine-Broque



MTC-00014025

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
1070 Riverside Drive
Battle Creek, Michigan 49015
January 18,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the recent settlement 
arrived at between Microsoft and the DOJ. I am presently retired 
from the workforce however my nephew presently works as a manager 
with Microsoft.

[[Page 25873]]

My interest in the success of the company is therefore very 
personal. It is my sincerest desire that the remaining States, who 
are not in agreement with the settlement, will help put this issue 
to rest as soon as possible so that Microsoft my get back on track 
and continue to provide excellent service.
    I am very satisfied with the efforts that Microsoft has made 
thus far to satisfy the terms of the settlement with the DOJ. 
Microsoft has even established an interim release of Windows XP, to 
provide a mechanism to make it easier to promote no-Microsoft 
software within Windows. I am confident that anti-trust issues will 
not present itself in the future.
    I appreciate your willingness to hear to the voice of the people 
by way of the Microsoft Tunney Act. I trust that my input will be 
considered favorably for Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Don Degroot



MTC-00014026

From: Mike Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:48pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I think Microsoft is only trying to get a stronger foothold in 
the education market and is using this judgment to fool the public 
into thinking it is really being punished.
    Mike Baker



MTC-00014027

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  2:49pm
Subject: (no subject)
    When are you guys going to lay off the only company in the US 
that has brought so much the America? Please stop wasting my tax 
dollars and get back to work fighting terrorist suspects. Make 
America SAFE again. Put the bad guys behind bars not penalize a 
company the employees thousands and pays millions in taxes.
    Thanks,
    Hal Dennis
    [email protected]



MTC-00014028

From: Bruce Reed
To: Microsoft ATR,mpowell@fcc. gov@inetgw, kabernat@fcc. . . .
Date: 1/19/02  3:00pm
Subject: MSN Broadband and QWest partnership problems
    I have been a QWest DSL/ISP customer for a couple of years. In 
December QWest sent notification that all customers must migrate to 
MSN Broadband with a deadline in January 2002.
    No choices were offered for other ISPs. No mention was even made 
that you could have QWest DSL with a 3rd party ISP.
    I selected the MSN migration. Surprisingly (sarcasm), the 
migration process was automatic--no human intervention required, no 
delay in the changeover. But I experienced a few issues with the new 
service, none of which are explained.
    1--All outgoing email MUST go thru the MSN SMTP email server. 
Connection to any other SMTP server is blocked. This was not 
disclosed.
    2--SMTP access for outgoing mail is strictly by secured password 
authentication. This was not disclosed.
    3--The only email product I am aware of that has secured 
password authentication is. . .  you guessed it--MS Outlook/Outlook 
Express. By the way, it should be obvious--this was not disclosed. 
I'm sure I never saw anything with the MSN migration information 
that said you must use Outlook.
    These are just the technical issues. Even more important are the 
processes.
    1--Once migrated to MSN Broadband, MSN owns the entire account, 
including the DSL physical connection. This was not disclosed.
    2--Once migrated to MSN Broadband, you cannot change ISPs. You 
must completely cancel the MSN Broadband. This was not disclosed.
    3--When you cancel the MSN Broadband, you cannot immediately 
order different DSL service. This was not disclosed. This would seem 
to be beyond anti-competitive practices, and into if not illegal, 
definitely improper practices.
    4--Once the MSN Broadband is physically disconnected and DSL 
service is no longer active, YOU STILL CANNOT ORDER NEW SERVICE. You 
must wait until MSN finishes its paperwork, and no longer owns your 
account. This was not disclosed. Is there any doubt now that we are 
at the level of illegal practices?
    5--One MSN paperwork is completed, and MSN no longer owns your 
account, you must order new DSL service, and must wait approximately 
10 business days for DSL service. This was not disclosed. Although 
this may be reasonable for new service, it is not reasonable for an 
ISP change.
    In summary, to change away from MSN Broadband to a different 
ISP, you must
    1--cancel service (1/2/02)
    2--wait for disconnect--about 1 week (1/9/02)
    3--wait for paperwork--about 1 week (was told maximum of 10 bus. 
days from cancellation)
    4--order new service (was told on 1/9/02 that once I could 
order, it would probably be about the end of January to get service 
up)
    5--wait 2 weeks
    In other words once you make the decision to change, you are 
stuck with MSN for one more week, then have three weeks or more 
without service. Not only is all this anti-competitive, but they 
never told me ANY of this up front.
    I would like to make a personal thank-you to Rick Gray at the 
QWest DSL Manager Escalation center for his assistance in getting my 
``new'' order placed within a reasonable time in spite of the 
policies, and in escalating the actual installation.
    Microsoft's steps and objectives are plainly obvious. One must 
question QWest's new practice of turning complete ownership of DSL 
service over to MSN. One must also blame QWest for not providing 
some of these details with the migration information.



MTC-00014029

From: Mikael J.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  3:03pm
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.
    I'm develop for BeOS in my spare time, and had actual plans to 
work at Be once I finished college. Unfortunately, this won't be 
possible, due to a lot of reasons, some of them stated above--
basically Be's death was due to Microsoft's bussines practices.
    I sincerely hope there's light at the end of the tunnel--I've 
been living with BeOS as my main operating system for three years, 
and couldn't possibly picture myself running another operating 
system.
    Regards
    Mikael Jansson,
    Sweden.



MTC-00014030

From: Sean Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    For a punishment for Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior in 
the computer market place I would like to see Microsoft provide 
funding to schools which are the poorest of the poor in the United 
States of America.
    This $1billion minimum amount would go to funding any areas of 
the school, which each individual school or school board sees fit. 
That would mean that a school could use the money to buy new 
textbooks, new musical instruments, stationary supplies, athletic 
equipment or other requirements.
    In terms of using the money for buying new computers or other 
technology that would also be fine, but Microsoft would not be 
allowed to insist that schools buy Microsoft products with their 
allotment. Schools would be allowed to buy computers from any 
source, even a competitor such as Apple Computer, Inc., which has a 
strong presence in the educational industry.
    Microsoft has the cash reserves to implement the $1billion 
minimum and any proposals below this level should be rejected.
    Sincerely,
    Sean Major
    [email protected]

[[Page 25874]]



MTC-00014031

From: Mike Pridavka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish the Department of Justice would find something better to 
do with their time and money than wasting it on trying to screw up 
one of the best companies that America has ever had. Microsoft is 
the model that all companies should strive for. They are the most 
innovative and forward looking company that I have seen. They have 
proven that free enterprise, hard work and the entrepreneurial 
spirit are a live and well and I applaud them for it. I am ashamed 
that my government has tried to bring this great company down. I 
would suggest that the government take a look in the mirror and 
focus on fixing it's self. If this is the governments idea of 
watching out for me, I would rather they focus on something else. 
Please find something better to do!
    Michael D. Pridavka



MTC-00014032

From: William Potts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  3:43pm
Subject: Re: Web page
    Good day,
    I am rather amazed at our regulatory institution, in there 
historically infinite wisdom, to conclude that microsoft is a 
monopoly in the highest order. There were no questions in the break 
up of AT&T and going back to the rampage of the steel giants at the 
turn of the century. How can anyone legitimately think that 
microsoft is not maliciously stifling competition? They have already 
been proven to manipulate open protocols to there own needs. (tcp/ms 
for one and corrupted html code, msn/opera) MS has and is filling a 
need in the consumer market. They do have a reasonably simple 
product to use. Not as user friendly as Mac, but runs on much 
cheaper hardware. It is also much simpler than Linux. What is the 
problem with microsoft being forced to conform to internationally 
established protocols? And how can anyone at ms actually keep a 
straight face when speaking of priracy? (simple search on anything 
ms will suffice)
    I know the chances of someone reading this message is slim to 
none. I also know that if it is read that it's probably irrelevant. 
Thanks for the opportunity anyway.
    Sincerely,
    William Potts



MTC-00014035

From: Bob (038) Helen Bamrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
E.R. &. H.J. Bamrick
6131 N 36th Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85019
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    It is our opinion that if it weren't for Microsoft and their 
superb ability and capability to make the operation of computers and 
the Internet easy for people like us we would STILL be relegated to 
getting our ``news'' from the biased newspapers.
    Microsoft is getting taken for a ride in our opinion. U.S. 
lawmakers and politicians have shown no concern for the public's 
best interests throughout this case, as reflected by the terms of 
settlement that showcase stipulations that only benefit competitors. 
Ironically, now you are asking us for our opinion when it doesn't 
matter nearly as much.
    The terms of the settlement will only serve to give leverage to 
competitors that had no idea how to be more innovative than 
Microsoft. For instance, Microsoft now has to grant broad new rights 
to configure Windows so as to make easier the promotion of non-
Microsoft products. Microsoft is also documenting and disclosing, 
for use by competitors, technology that has been developed in-house.
    Since we are users and have no complaints as users we think the 
settlement is flawed. But, because the alternative is further 
litigation, we would like to see the settlement occur as soon as 
possible.
    Sincerely,
    E.R.(Bob) Bamrick
    H.J. Bamrick
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014036

From: NARCISSA KIEWERT
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:31pm
Subject: Microspft sttlement
    its time to stop impeding the development of Microsoft.Settle in 
their favor.Youre truly,N.Kiewert



MTC-00014037

From: Chris Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:34pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am opposed to the Propsed Revised Final Judgment for many 
reasons, but I shall discuss five points here.
    1. Microsoft's power over the OEMs is worded in secret and 
confidential agreements between the OEM and Microsoft. The Final 
Judgement does nothing to expose all forms of restraint or potential 
retaliations hidden in those agreements, only those known today.
    There is an attempt to make sure that Microsoft uses terms and 
conditions that are uniform across the OEMs, however it is well 
known the OEMs are currently forbidden (because of the confidential 
agreements imposed upon them by Microsoft as a condition for selling 
the software) to discuss openly about retaliatory terms and 
conditions. This stranglehold practice cannot continue.
    It must be allowed for OEMs to discuss terms and conditions of 
these contracts without being ``gagged'' or retaliated against by 
Microsoft.
    There is nothing in the Final Judgment that would prevent 
Microsoft from adding future terms and conditions that would be 
considered by some to be retaliatory in nature. And if the 
agreements are considered confidential between on OEM and Microsoft, 
there is no ability for the OEM to act without breaching the 
agreement. There is nothing in the Final Judgment to allow the OEM 
to offer non-Microsoft Operating Systems and any related bootloader 
programs as the consumer's *first* choice for an operating system in 
a multi-boot system. It is well known that the existing Microsoft/
OEM contracts prevent a non-Microsoft Operating System from being 
offered as a *first* choice to consumers, only as second or 
subsequent choices. The Final Judgment wording would continue to 
allow Microsoft to prevent competition. This wording is an example 
of what Microsoft has done in the past to get around the previous 
Anti-Trust judgment.
    2. The Final Judgment allows for a vast loophole for Microsoft 
in Section III J.
    For Microsoft to not be required to disclose an API or related 
information, all Microsoft must do is label it as a necessary 
component for ``security''. Many third party software packages will 
be rendered useless once Microsoft decides through this ``security'' 
loophole who can and cannot see what's under the covers.
    Microsoft lawyers (probably unbeknowst to DOJ lawyers) have 
carefully crafted wording to deny Open Source projects as a party in 
the revealing of any API or documentation. Open Source projects such 
as SAMBA, a competitor to Microsoft's file and print sharing 
services, may not fit the definition in III J (2).
    ``(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, . . . ''
    The language is horribly slanted towards Microsoft.
    It appears that Microsoft is the party which determines whether 
an organization will meet the criteria set forth and not the 
Enforcement Authority or other third party.
    Condition (a) stipulates that the organization cannot have a 
``willful violation of intellectual property rights.'' Who 
determines whether a violation existed or at all and whether it was 
``willful''? Apparently Microsoft does.
    Some Open Source organizations have indeed reverse engineered 
what Microsoft might consider their intellectual property. But it is 
odd that now that Microsoft will be required to expose these APIs. 
Those that were deemed by Microsoft (and not any judicial entity) to 
have violated those same API property rights in the past would be 
excluded from now legally obtaining those rights.
    And Microsoft's choice of who is in violation of its 
intellectual property rights may have nothing to do with Microsoft's 
choice not to prosecute them in the past for those past violations. 
This wording is wholly inadequate.
    Clause (b) allows Microsoft to determine if there is a business 
need to an API. Why should any company be required to disclose

[[Page 25875]]

to Microsoft the plans on how that company intends to produce a 
competitive product? Wouldn't that give Microsoft the product idea 
for themselves to develop and exploit, potentially beating that 
company to market?
    Clauses (b) and (c) also allow Microsoft to determine if an 
organization is a business or not. An Open Source project is not 
necessarily (and in fact, most are not) a business in the 
captitalism model. There is necessarily no corporate structure, 
shareholders, or employees. There sometimes is simply a loose 
organization of individuals from around the world. However, these 
organizations produce some of the world's best software, much of 
which directly competes with Microsoft's programs.
    The Final Judgment wording is easily interpreted to exclude Open 
Source projects and organizations and this wording is simply 
inadequate.
    3. The Technical Committee (TC) is wrought with problems.
    3.a. Why does Microsoft have the right to select a member? Isn't 
this allowing for a fox to guard the hen house?
    3.b Why does Microsoft pay the costs for the TC? Doesn't this 
create a conflict of interest?
    3.c The TC has no authority to impose fines, create injuctions, 
or limit actions against Microsoft.
    3.d The TC is bound by confidentiality agreements to which, of 
course, Microsoft will require full adherance, thus severely 
limiting what the TC can discuss with non-parties. The citizenry of 
the US (and the world) has a right to know the details of a dispute, 
but when the dispute is classified as confidential at Microsoft's 
sole discretion, this really amounts to another gag order. How can 
this be good?
    I find the TC severly lacking in its ability to curb any 
Microsoft behavior at all, especially when there is no real 
enforcement power given to this body, and when 1.5 people on the TC 
are appointed by Microsoft, and when the TC's payroll and expenses 
are reimbursed by Microsoft.
    4. The term of five years is wholly inadequate. It has taken 
just as long to process this case as the proposed five-year term of 
this agreement.
    The term should be indefinite. It should also be on the burden 
of Microsoft to prove at a later date that they have not violated 
Anti-Trust laws for a period of, say, no less than ten years before 
the DOJ should even consider ending the agreement. Microsoft has 
proven that they are willful law breakers.
    After the previous settlement, Microsoft lawyers and executives 
set out to push the envelope of what was legal. Theydid not abide by 
the spirit of the last agreement and cannot be trusted to abide by 
any spirit of this one. Their past actions indicate that once again, 
their lawyers will be looking to exploit any and all weaknesses in 
this agreement.
    5. There is absolutely no attempt to address restitution for any 
injured parties or address fines against Microsoft for breaking the 
law.
    None.
    Microsoft has $38 billion in cash and this Final Judgment does 
nothing to address the fact that Microsoft made that money by its 
illegal acts.
    I don't know how to explain to my family why one of the biggest 
corporate criminals in the world was allowed to keep the money they 
illegally made. The DOJ lawyers should be ashamed of themselves.
    In conclusion, I do not support this proposed Final Judgment. It 
is inadequate to keep Microsoft in check and makes no attempt at 
restitution or fines. I respectfully ask that this proposed Final 
Judgment be rejected.
    Chris Young
    610 NW 79th St
    Seattle, WA 98117
    CC:Chris Young



MTC-00014038

From: M Hogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please put faith and trust back into government. I believe 
whatever Microsoft has been purported, the accusers have also used 
whatever means at hand in the efforts of competiveness.
    Microsoft has shown to be far more ethical than its accusers 
using our governments money to fight a private grievance. This is 
not the time for our government to be wasting resources and energy 
on an issue that has already been determined to be fair and 
reasonable by even our own citizens responses. Don't they hear us?
    This continued thirst for revenge by ego driven individuals is 
to say we are not capable of compromise and not worthy of our faith 
in the departments into which the public places their trust. I 
believe you have put forth every effort to get this behind us and 
move on. Your efforts have been in the publics best interest. The 
guide lines are firm yet fair. We are hoping you will rule in favor 
of this settlement.
    Thank you for all your consideration in these grave times.
    Patrick and Marlene Hogan



MTC-00014039

From: Patrick A. Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:37pm
Subject: Anti-competitive practices
    I believe we use MS software because it is the ``only game in 
town''.
    They stifle competition at every chance. The consumer is faced 
with the fact that they continually foist us to buy their new crap 
because they make sure anything new that might be worthwhile will 
not work with previous versions.



MTC-00014040

From: Dana Alan Carlton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft case
    Microsoft is a monopoly.
    In the United States of America monopolies are not allowed.
    Microsoft should be broken up and their influence in the 
marketplace diminished severely so there is true competition and 
innovation is allowed to flourish.
    Microsoft should be severely punished financially, to the tune 
of tens of billions of dollars, for their predatory and anti 
competitive behavior which has allowed them to dominate at the 
expense of other companies.
    The playing field needs to be re-leveled at Microsoft's expense.
    Microsoft does not need a slap on the back of the hand.
    The U.S. government needs to stop giving Microsoft contracts and 
to help other competing companies.
    Microsoft should be forced to sell off their browser and email 
products and not be allowed to expand their influence in new 
markets.
    They should not be allowed to provide financing for companies 
they own in part or whole to gain control of other markets such as 
high speed internet access.
    The Federal government should act quickly, not act years from 
now.



MTC-00014041

From: Dale Brooks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems as though Micosoft will be prohibitted from future 
anti.competitive actions, but the settlement seems to be very light 
in punitive action for past actions. What price is to be paid for 
past actions except to ensure that they do not recur. Microsoft has 
already won the monopoly war and this settlement does nothing to 
punish them for the atrocities committed during the battles. There 
is no punishment and there is no remorse from Microsoft.



MTC-00014042

From: Paul E Hurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Letter in the mail.



MTC-00014044

From: Brian Tvenstrup
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Throughout the entire Microsoft anti-trust case, every court has 
found that
    Microsoft has abused its market power in a monopolistic fashion 
and stifled competition while earning unjust profits in the process. 
Furthermore, Microsoft has consistently shown itself to be unable or 
unwilling to police its own actions to bring them into accord with 
appropriate standards of conduct within a free-market community. 
Consequently, I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement you 
are currently considering is fatally flawed. First, it does not 
adequately punish Microsoft for its violations to date and allows 
them to continue to enjoy the fruit of their anti-competitive and 
illegal behavior. Second, it provides no meaningful provisions to 
ensure that Microsoft will not repeat these sorts of activities in 
the future, because it does not structurally alter its ability to do 
so. I urge you to reject this proposal and accept only a more 
stringent and punitive set of remedies that will address the 
underlying issues of punishment and deterrence.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 25876]]

    Brian Tvenstrup
    2522 West Walnut Street
    Colmar, PA 18915



MTC-00014045

From: Ed Gow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement of the Microsoft antitrust trial that has been 
proposed by the Justice Department is weak and inadequate and is not 
in the public interest. Because of its many exclusions, this 
settlement would rely upon the greatest of good faith on the part of 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has not admitted to wrongdoing in the present case. 
They remain as they have shown themselves to be in the past, 
unwilling to abide in good faith by limits on their conduct. Only 
the most unambiguous of limits with clear means of enforcement and 
the prospect of harsh penalties can extract compliance from 
Microsoft.
    Faced with a similarly inadequate settlement in 1994, Judge 
Stanley Sporkin rejected it. He was overruled and the 1995 consent 
decree was put in place by Judge Jackson. Microsoft went on to, in 
the most forgiving view, test the limits of that agreement. A more 
reasonable view that has emerged from the courts in the present 
trial is that Microsoft knowingly and systematically violated both 
the consent decree and the Sherman Act. Accepting a weak settlement 
in this case will guarantee a repeat of the unfortunate consequences 
of the 1995 decree.
    As a consumer I have watched several times as Microsoft has used 
its market power to eliminate innovative products that were of 
interest to me. It is widely acknowledged that venture capitalists 
will not fund development that Microsoft opposes. This stifles 
innovation at its root. Microsoft is now moving to use its Windows 
monopoly to gain control of the ways that consumers use the 
internet. Although it was deemed unlikely by Judge Jackson at trial, 
the Internet Explorer browser has approached the status of a 
monopoly product (many internet web sites work properly only with 
IE). Such is the power of ``comingling'' with Windows.
    In short, accepting the proposed settlement will harm the public 
by allowing Microsoft to continue its anticompetitive practices. It 
should be rejected in favor of a remedy that places clear limits on 
Microsoft's behavior and meaningful penalties for future abuses.



MTC-00014046

From: timmber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:20pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I would like to see these frivilous lawsuits against Microsoft 
come to an end. The bottom line of this whole thing is a couple of 
companies who refuse to compete in the marketplace. They use 
``consumer protection'' lingo to hide behind but what they really 
want is for Microsoft not to exist at all.
    They think this will make their companies strong. All these 
lawsuits have done is to make America weak.
    Just look at the rise of the EU and anyone with the common sense 
God gave them would see a real problem for American enterprise on 
the near horizon.
    Our government is essentially eating its own young and the 
states just won't let go of it until Microsoft is so weak from 
funding lawsuits that they cannot lead America in free enterprise 
anymore. Please see this for what is really is and has been all 
along, and it has nothing to do with consumers, only with certain 
competitors who seem to want a socialist government instead of 
capitalist.
    Computer products have been getting smarter and better for 
consumers and the prices have been coming down esp. considering the 
many things software can do now so rapidly.
    Let's end this nonsense and get on with getting America 
recovered as a leader of the free world.
    Respectfully,
    Marie Timm



MTC-00014047

From: Joe Lamonte
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:31pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To the Justice Department:
    This whole lawsuit against Microsoft has been a case of 
injustice. It has caused my stock to lose half its value, many 
teachers and others to have considerable losses in their retirement 
portfolios, and has made government officials look like fools that 
can be manipulated by company executives that want to get a 
competitor out of the way.
    I think that the ones who want all they can squeeze out of 
Microsoft are just like the fools that killed the goose that laid 
the golden eggs. Microsoft has been indirectly responsible for much 
of the boom we have experienced in the last decade. What has 
happened to them has been, and will be, a nightmare in the dreams of 
many who would like to begin new businesses or make their current 
businesses grow.
    Please stop trying to take away the freedoms we have had in this 
great country. Stop undermining our justice system with judges that 
look likes complete idiots(Jackson).
    Please tell those states to go check on Edward Kennedy if they 
want to really go after someone that needs to be stopped . Tell them 
to check on his connections with Merck and Medco and Paid 
Prescriptions, and then ask him why he wants to have Medicare cover 
all prescriptions for everyone.
    How many other politicians do we have that have connections with 
businesses that are doing business with the government? How much 
business have they directed toward friends and relatives?
    How many of them have lost net worth in the ``service'' of the 
public? How many pardons have been bought and bedrooms been rented 
out for libraries and campaign donations?
    I think the government needs to get the beam out of their own 
eye before looking at the speck in another's.
    Sincerely,
    Myra Lamonte



MTC-00014048

From: Bob Crites
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. I am not 
employed in the software or computer business. I do not own stock in 
any software or computer company. I just buy and use the products.
    Microsoft has been found guilty of conducting illegal acts to 
maintain its monopoly of personal computer operating systems. But 
there does not seem to be even a light penalty for their behavior. 
There is nothing that I have read which would keep them from 
repeating the acts which lead to their conviction.
    The settlement is so mild as to be almost humorous. But those of 
us who are consumers of software are not laughing. The monopoly 
which led them to something like 90 per cent of the market almost 
completely destroyed all other personal computing operating systems, 
and discouraged inventive software writers from creating new 
software.
    A fair and effective resolution of this matter must provide 
incentives for Microsoft to comply with the law. No one believes 
they will become good citizens unless forced to.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Robert Crites
    553 E Palo Verde Street
    Yuma, AZ 85365



MTC-00014049

From: Jay Raisoni
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:40pm
Subject: MICROSOFT Settlement
    THe litigation has dragged out too long already and has been a 
colossal waste. It is time to settle it now.



MTC-00014050

From: walter roubik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:39pm
Subject: Mixrosoft settlement
    There are 3 PC's in our family working with Windows; we all 
believe that Windows was a factor in decreasing the price of 
personal PC's and that the consumer has substantially benefited. 
Microsoft competition didn't like it and got e receptive ear in 
Clinton's Administration resulting in an antitrust suit. After 
protracted litigation an equitable settlement was reached; it is 
being now attacked by Attorneys General of several states. Further 
delay will prevent return to normalcy in the PC market and enrich 
trial lawyers. I urge you to conclude the matter now. Respectfully 
Walter Roubik



MTC-00014051

From: Rick Fister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    As a software developer who watched Microsoft ruthlessly destroy 
Netscape, and who is currently watching Microsoft employ similar 
tactics to unfairly compete with Real Networks, I am shocked at the 
proposed settlement. These are just the segments of the

[[Page 25877]]

market that I happen to follow; I suspect that Microsoft employs 
similar unfair monopoly tactics in other market segments. Please see 
that justice is carried out by creating a settlement that fairly 
punishes Microsoft for abusing its monopoly position. Note that any 
settlement that ``punishes'' Microsoft by requiring it to distribute 
it's software (to schools, etc.) is absurd in the context of dealing 
with a monopoly.
    If Microsoft refuses to accept a reasonable settlement, then 
please move forward with the court case.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Fister



MTC-00014052

From: Bert Altenburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    Microsoft is able to keep and abuse its monopoly due to the fact 
that its Office suite uses mainly proprietary file formats. If 
details about these formats were in the public domain, other 
companies could create easier to use and cheaper programs while 
maintaining file compatibility. That is, we would finally have a 
choice. The file formats should be extendable by every company 
(using an open architecture, allowing for plug-ins), and Microsoft 
should be forced to implement any improvements in the form of plug-
ins (and not change the file formats again). That is, other 
companies will be able to do more than just follow Microsoft: they 
can innovate, forcing Microsoft to start doing the same.
    Your attention in this is appreciated.
    Yours sincerely,
    Bert Altenburg



MTC-00014053

From: John Petri
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Petri
512 N. Grove Street, Suite 203
Hendersonville, NC 28792-4489
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 O. Petri



MTC-00014054

From: James Lewis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Lewis
1712 Cottonwood Dr.
Waukesha, WI 53189-7227
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 W. Lewis, II



MTC-00014055

From: Kuebelbeck, Jason
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/19/02  6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the propsed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. The 
company has made no substantive changes to the way it does business. 
It is thumbing its nose at the American Government. I think the 
settlement needs to be much, much more restrictive of Microsoft's 
actions.



MTC-00014056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  6:08pm
Subject: View of proposed settlements
    I am addressing this address because of a report that the 
Department is seekign public comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    Microsoft was caught engaging in anti-competitive behaviors, 
confirming rumors on the street that had previously been fairly well 
accepted by observers. These behaviors including various forms of 
blackmail, such as charging OEM's for the price of Windows times the 
numbers of units sold, without regard to whether Windows was in fact 
installed, and charging a higher price to people who would not 
commit to Microsoft Apps being default apps or exclusive holders of 
a place on the desktop. The trial judge's findings of fact in these 
regards are still the facts of the case.
    Of considerable interest to me is that Microsoft was caught in 
deliberate factual misrepresentations to the court more than once, 
yet showed no remorse or embarrassment, evidencing an arrogance that 
mocks any future reliance on in their truthfulness. Presumably if 
they will lie to the sitting judge in an anti-trust case, and ignore 
the fact they got caught at it, one may assume they will continue to 
lie to any enforcer/inspector.
    The trial judge's remedy was positively inspired. Make sure that 
the OS folks have no lock on the apps, and vis versa.
    This was the second time that Microsoft was in the courts over 
monopolistic manipulation of the marketplace. It was clear they had 
violated the intent and spirit of the first court order. They are 
simply not to be trusted.
    As for Microsoft's oft invocation of the right to innovate, one 
must reluctantly conclude that the only ``innovation'' ever produced 
by Microsoft, was their bald-faced adoption of ideas from DR/DOS, 
Xerox, and Apple, marketed in the press releases as their own 
wonderful new idea, and gullibly lapped up by the press. They also 
innovated by introducing to the software business the business model 
and ethics of the Robber Barons of the late nineteenth century. The 
highest quality work product of the company is their marketing and 
propaganda. Their ability to deliver to the public beta software 
sold as the final product is legendary, not to mention illustrative 
introduction of XP as ``the most secure OS ever'' which OS was 
within the week shown vulnerable to all sorts of attacks. That they 
charge what they do for products which are as poor as they are, is 
further proof of the existence of a monopoly.
    Do not trust these people. Place no faith in them. Do not rely 
on them in any way, shape or form. Every representation made to you 
by them is to be treated as untruthful in terms of designing the 
remedy.
    Oliwni,
    Ted



MTC-00014057

From: Clifford Wiernik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  6:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I am a certified public accountant and programmer. I work with 
both Microsoft and Novell networks. I program for the Microsoft

[[Page 25878]]

environment. I do not feel that the proposed Microsoft/US government 
settlement is sufficient. It does nothing to remedy the monopoly 
situation.
    Because of the current monopoly situation Microsoft has been 
able to:
    1. Release new software without fixing adequately bugs in the 
old software
    2. Force changes in licensing agreements that significantly 
increase the price of software
    3. The price of operating system software has gone up instead of 
gone down as other technology items have.
    4. The current XP home and XP professional release is just an 
indication of the problem. Their monopoly status has allowed them to 
create a Home release that is not supported on computer networks but 
because of the $100 price difference, is not available in stores 
like BestBuy, Staples, Office Depot, etc. (that is readily 
available). That limits business options.
    Prior version of Win9X were also usable on corporate networks 
which the Home version replaces.
    Nothing in the settlement would remedy this.
    5. Microsoft's software is similar in function to the engine of 
a car. If a car engine had as many defects Microsofts operating 
system products, the likes of Ralph Nader and US Consumer Products 
Division would have a field day.
    Because of the monopoly situation, they are in a position to 
constantly force new versions without fixing the prior versions. 
Moreover, the current indications are that Microsoft is pulling 
support, especially via corporate licensing programs, for older 
versions even faster. Because of their track record with bugs 
releases and security problems, support is being pulled for a stable 
version before the corporate community can adequately test and fully 
implement these items.
    In my view, Microsoft's Operating System Division should be 
separate from the software division so the operating system division 
would finally produce a truely stable operating system. Currently, 
their monopoly status does not allow any viable alternatives as 
software drives the operatin system choice. Without adequate user 
software, the greatest operating system will not achieve any 
acceptable level of wide spread use.
    Clifford Wiernik
    325 Ann Drive
    Stevens Point, WI 54481



MTC-00014058

From: Ellen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  6:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    I would like to share my opinions with you on the pending 
Microsoft Settlement.I have used Microsoft products for over a 
decade. I have purchased many of their software products over the 
years because I like the software and the software works. I have 
tried other software to see if it offered something better but I did 
not find that it did.I am aware that there are other operating 
systems available, such as Linux, Macintosh, BeOS, but I choose to 
use Windows because I feel it is the best. I have a problem 
understanding why Microsoft is considered a monopoly when consumers 
have choices and they choose
    Microsoft. However, I understand that there is a settlement in 
the Justice Department's suit against Microsoft and I am sending 
this e-mail to give my support to this agreement and ask that you 
also support it. It's time to move ahead and let Microsoft move 
ahead to develop better and more exciting products for consumers.
    I understand that Microsoft has agreed to terms that far exceed 
the products and procedures that were actually at issue in the suit. 
Microsoft has agreed to help companies better achieve a greater 
degree of reliability with regard to their networking software. 
Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows with a 
capability making it easier to promote non-Microsoft software. It 
seems to me that Microsoft has done far more than what was needed.
    Thank you
    Ellen Warren
    18 Tomahawk Drive
    White Plains, NY 10603



MTC-00014059

From: Margaret (038) Doug Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  6:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Letter
Original Message
From: Margaret & Doug Green
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: USAGGreen--Margaret--1026--0116 (3)
1906 Southwest 43rd Street
Pendleton, OR 97801
January 18, 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. I am a Microsoft supporter; therefore, I 
support this settlement and the end of this costly litigation.
    This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations. 
Microsoft has agreed to fully carry out all provisions of this 
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to not retaliate against computer 
makers who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system. A technical oversight committee has been created 
by the government to oversee Microsoft compliance to this agreement.
    This settlement will benefit all of us. Please support this 
settlement and allow this company to get back to business. Thank you 
for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Green



MTC-00014060

From: Glae Thien
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  6:54pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Glae Thien
551 E. 4th Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
760-745-3457
[email protected]
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support of the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Dept. of Justice. After 
three years of protracted litigation resolution regarding this 
matter is extremely welcome. While I disagree with the original 
merits of this case, I believe settling this issue is highly 
beneficial in that it allows Microsoft and other members of the tech 
industry to return their full focus to business productivity. The 
changes called for within the terms of the settlement are generous 
on behalf of Microsoft, which has agreed to disclose the internal 
interfaces and protocols of the Windows operating system. Thus, 
beginning with the interim release of Windows XP, users will be able 
to add or delete software according to their tastes. This ensures 
greater freedom in user's ability to configure their operating 
systems.
    Obviously, Microsoft is willing to make concessions in the 
interests of resolution, I would hope that the Justice Department 
would comply.
    Sincerely,
    Glae Thien



MTC-00014061

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
Att: John Ashcroft
John I. Schneider
14100 Hickory Hills Trail
Jeffersontown, KY 40299
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the recent antitrust 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft has 
been a long time coming. I think it is ridiculous that litigation 
has dragged on for over three years now and think that our public's 
best interests will be served when government stops interfering with 
successful innovative companies that have made huge contributions to 
our society.
    The terms of the settlement not only reflect the intense 
lobbying of competitors to Microsoft, but also politicians and 
lawmakers lack of concern for consumer rights. Ironically, all the 
terms of the settlement seem to just focus on helping competitors 
get an edge they could not gain on their own through hard work. For 
instance, Microsoft will be granting broad new rights to computer 
makers to configure Windows to actively promote non-Microsoft 
products. Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate

[[Page 25879]]

against computer makers and software developers who promote non-
Microsoft products.
    Although unjustified, the settlement is in the best interest of 
American public because it is better than the alternative of further 
litigation. Our nation cannot afford any more lawsuits against the 
cornerstone of the tech sector. I hope your office takes my opinion 
seriously and that you make the right decision at the end of the 
public comment period.
    Sincerely,
    John Schneider



MTC-00014062

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  7:33pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
Original Message
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] ; David G. Bradlee
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:17 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to address the antitrust settlement reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Both my wife Adele 
and I are in favor of the current settlement and putting an end to 
these proceedings immediately.
    Under the terms of the settlement, Microsoft will grant computer 
makers the rights to configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft 
software programs that compete with programs included in Windows. 
Computer makers may now replace peripheral Windows components such 
as Internet Explorer and Media Player with access to non-Microsoft 
software such as Netscape Communicator and Real Player. Microsoft 
has also agreed to release internal operating interfaces of Windows 
to its competitors for the purposes of their own software 
development.
    We both have used Microsoft products for many years without 
complaint and have never seen the monopolistic face that has been 
portrayed by the advocates of the antitrust case. We believe that 
the litigation process is being unnecessarily drawn out by the 
remaining unsettled states. Their refusal to the settlement is 
wasting valuable time and resources, including our tax dollars. 
Given the current state of our nations economy, we think that it is 
absurd to continue deliberating this issue any longer.
    Cordially,
    Merrill & Adele Bradlee
    3535 Birkdale Lane
    Palm Harbor, FL 34684



MTC-00014063

From: jmzoffel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  8:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT THE COMPANIES and states 
SUING MICROSOFT HAVE HAD MANY YEARS TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT OR 
BETTER PRODUCT THAT MICROSOFT HAS.
    BUT THESE COMPANIES HAVE NOT COME UP WITH THAT NEW PRODUCT- 
INSTEAD THEY CONTINUE TO SUE MICROSOFT.
    WHERE WOULD THE WORLD BE IF WERE NOT FOR MICROSOFT.
    WHO BENEFITS FROM FURTHER LITIGATION? The ATTORNEYS and other 
people looking for a free ride.
    Microsoft has always tried to help me solve computer problems 
over the phone and that is not always easy because I only have one 
phone line and am not a computer genius (know a computer fairly 
well).
    Do hope the Judge will use common sense in this matter. COMMON 
SENSE what wonderful words--long forgotten in many vocabularies 
these days.
    Thank you,
    Joan M. Zoffel
    Seattle, Washington



MTC-00014064

From: Brad Borland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  8:23pm
Subject: DOJ vs MSFT
    I am of the firm opinion that the seattlement reached between 
the subject parties is in the public interest.
    My reasons are mutiple, and are not in the least influenced by 
the fact that I have a few shares of Microsoft stock.
    J. Bradford Borland



MTC-00014065

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not tie up any more of my tax dollars on litigation.
    I hope you settle this once and for all.
    The consumer has free choice, the best software will flourish no 
matter who makes it. Let the consumers decide. I have not been 
harmed in any way.
    Thanks for listening. Hope you take this to heart.
    Sincerely, Deborah Crist



MTC-00014066

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  8:48pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    We agree that a settlement is just and right for this situation. 
End this litigation and let the attorney's involved get on to more 
important issues.
    Child welfare is not a financial success issue but sure needs a 
lot of help!! Snicerely, Mary Ann Mandel



MTC-00014067

From: bruce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is good at playing the game. Even with severe 
penalties I question whether they will change. Their business 
practices and attitude are arrogant.
    Is it to late for you to do anything to solve the problem? 
Maybe. You blinked and now they feel stronger. Last hope, I think, 
is to be tenancious in getting a settlement that punishes them to 
the point that it actually hurts.
    Blink again and you've lost for good. The next fight will be 
worse than this one. Make the most of this chance.



MTC-00014068

From: Orlene McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please Please settle this The Government should have never 
gotten involved the economy was good until you started with trying 
to put them out of business. If you settle this I guarantee this 
will help the economy they have did nothing wrong. They employ 
millions and gave us the best in the technical industry and look 
what the Clinton's did. Please take care of this for all of us. 
Thanks
    Live,Love,Laugh



MTC-00014069

From: Dan Bain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am a student who is majoring in Business Administration at the 
University of Southern California. I am a firm believer in this 
country and the economic foundations that it was established on. 
Time has proven that capitalism and free market competition are the 
most effective means of prosperity.
    Do not allow Microsoft to tear down this system that has worked 
so effectively and efficiently for this country.
    Every court that has reviewed this case has declared that 
Microsoft has been aggressive in their illegal conduct, and I ask 
you to hold up the law and punish them for their actions, do not 
reward them by giving them exactly what they want.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel James Bain
    [email protected]
    213-764-1414
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014070

From: David C.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:28pm
Subject: Regarding the proposed settlement
    To whomever it may concern,
    As an unbiased developer who has embraced and employed both 
Microsoft and Sun technologies during my extensive software 
development career, it is my personal and professional opinion that 
the proposed settlement is both a misunderstanding of the nature of 
the damages caused by Microsoft monopoly tactics, and also a 
comparitive slap-on-the-wrist in relation to what I consider 
appropriate action to be.
    Contrary to popular belief, Microsoft is not the keystone of the 
American economy, and the economy would not suffer if Microsoft were 
even broken in two, as was previously proposed. Microsoft is a 
competition-killer. How has it responded in the face of suits 
declaring the bundling of Internet Explorer with the Windows 
operating system? It has bundled even more software for everything

[[Page 25880]]

from CD burning to website building, embedded deeply into the core 
operating system. This will in result make it extremely difficult 
for existing vendors of such products to penetrate the market with 
Microsoft's mass dilution, causing a wave of small companies to 
capsize altogether. The ripple effect will not go unnoticed among 
medium and large companies, whether Microsoft rivals or not.
    Curtailing Microsoft's monopolistic tactics with firm sanctions 
(e.g., dividing the company) would more than likely result in a 
*boost* to the economy and an influx of new innovations and 
opportunities, benefiting both the consumer and our nation's large 
technical development industries (programmers, architects, etc.)
    Of course, this is just my humble opinion and I invite you to 
take it for what it is worth. Thanks for reading.
    Regards,
    David Carel
    Senior Software Development Engineer



MTC-00014071

From: Gary Vogt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:33pm
Subject: Settlement opinion
    I take great exception to the DOJ's proposed acceptance of this 
settlement as a viable punishment towards Microsoft. It is nothing 
more, in my opinion, than another step toward monopolizing efforts 
that are already under investigation. This may be the equivalent of 
slapping a drug dealer on the wrist for charging too much for his or 
her product and forcing them to ``donate'' a portion of future 
product to the masses so no one is left out of the deal. Why would I 
want to propagate such an effort? Does this really punish the guilty 
party? We all know the answer--NO! It actually reinforces the 
stranglehold they are currently being ``held accountable'' for. 
Apple Computer has long had a foothold in the one market that 
Microsoft so desperately wants--education. If we as Americans are to 
punish a ``monopolizer'' by allowing them to donate their 
proprietary operating systems and application programs to ``needy 
(non Apple market) school systems'', are we not as guilty as 
Microsoft?
    While roughly 80% of the software to be donated is Windows 
specific, the opposite is true of the operating system of choice in 
most school systems. This is where I believe we will all suffer. If 
we offer free or discounted software to schools that cannot afford 
to purchase the machines it runs on, what good can come of it? 
Perhaps these schools have functioning, but older, Apple computers, 
but are ready to propose a budget for staff and/or new equipment in 
the next year or so. What system do you suppose they will budget for 
if they are getting Windows specific software for free? We have just 
furthered the Microsoft cause by forcing more non Apple computers 
into the system. I thought that was what we were trying to prevent 
them from doing. I admit that I am a Apple owner and user. I am also 
a Windows user at work. I am biased towards the Mac/Apple operating 
system based on my ability to use both and make an educated decision 
of which to ``own''. This is called freedom of choice, I believe. If 
Microsoft wants to legitimately ``help needy school systems'', let 
them donate in the form of trust funds that can be used to staff our 
schools with qualified teachers and equipment. Let them set up 
annuities. Give the schools a check. Don't let them ``give'' the 
school a $150.00 software title that they have all of $1.00 invested 
in raw materials. This only amounts to a $ 149.00 charitable 
deduction at the end of the tax year. Give the people responsible 
for educating the future adults and voters of our country that same 
freedom of choice.
    Please see this offer from Microsoft for what it really is--a 
way to get into the market that has eluded them for years and hook 
them early and for life into their operating system. This will only 
force the school systems to hire more I.T. people to keep the 
Windows systems running when they should be hiring more teachers 
instead of cutting staff.
    Respectfully,
    Gary A. Vogt



MTC-00014072

From: Carl Strasser
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Strasser
147 Riverside Drive
Waterford, wi 53151
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    carl strasser



MTC-00014073

From: Peggy Wheeler
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Peggy Wheeler
640 Riverhaven Dr.
Suwanee, GA 30024
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Peggy Wheeler



MTC-00014074

From: Judith Sego
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judith Sego
223 Orange Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating 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 25881]]

With government out of the business of stifling progress and tying 
the hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Judith C. Sego



MTC-00014075

From: Bruce Burgess
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  7:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Burgess
3053 Bardona Circle
Gibsonia, Pa 15044
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce U. Burgess



MTC-00014076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There should be no settlement short of breaking Microsoft Corp. 
into separate Operating System and Application companys. Microsoft 
has repeatedly shown that it will violate the intent of any 
settlement.
    At the very least, Microsoft should be forced to publish the 
source code for the Windows operating system. Having the source code 
open for inspection will enable competitors to verify that 
Microsoft's operating systems division is not sabotaging their 
products.
    Eric Ringer
    [email protected]



MTC-00014077

From: Ronald Payne
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Payne
P.O. Box 1112--136 Hermitage Drive
Smyrna, Tn 37167-1112
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 August Payne



MTC-00014078

From: Christopher Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
13775 Southwest 23rd Street
Beaverton, OR 97008-5064
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was relieved to hear that the Justice Department has finally 
put an end to its persecution of Microsoft.
    Unfortunately, Microsoft had to give up a lot in order to get a 
settlement in the matter. I hope that you will further publicize the 
terms so that everyone can know just how much they are giving up.
    Microsoft giving up the access that it has promised to its 
competitors, is like Coke giving Pepsi the recipes for all its 
drinks. What's more, Microsoft has promised not to retaliate against 
their competitors when they use that code to further their own 
products.
    With this and many other hampering provisions in the settlement, 
I can't see how anyone would be unsatisfied with what's on the 
table. Let's hurry up and put this issue to rest. There are 
certainly more important issues for the Justice Department to deal 
with right now.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Ward



MTC-00014079

From: rbogan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I realize that this case is from a business standpoint. Oh the 
other hand though how can anyone in Washington make a judgment on 
something they know NOTHING about. If the press has kept things 
accurate then from my perspective being someone in the industry the 
federal government looks like a bunch of asses. Does the government 
actually know what they are breaking up or doing with Microsoft. 
Most of the IT jobs that the government has aren1t worth anything 
because the best and greatest young minds will go elsewhere where 
they can be paid better wages and not deal with things like which 
congress man slept with which intern. Is the government doing the 
``People'' a favor by screwing Microsoft. NO THEY AREN1T. If the 
government had people dealing with IT as smart as Microsoft, or 
Apple Computer, or Cisco, or Sun, then maybe they could understand 
what they are doing to the PC user in the long run and see how 
they1re going to affect the PC users of the world. The government 
looks like asses now and that1s the bottom line.
    Next time they pursue an IT giant they need to do more homework.
    R Bogan or you could call me one pissed off SOB



MTC-00014080

From: Mike Koehn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft
    I believe that Microsofts goal is to gain complete control of 
the internet then make sure that every person and company in the 
world pays them x amount of dollars per month, forever.
    Mike Koehn



MTC-00014081

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department,
    Bill Gates's blatant snubbing of anti-trust laws, and his 
getting by with it this far, is very disturbing to me. Each and 
every objection he has had to charges and indictments has bordered 
on preposterous. And the appearance of his buying off his enemies is 
exceptionally disturbing to me. It confirms yet again that if you 
have the money, you can get away with anything. Mr. Gates's claims 
that Microsoft was merely an

[[Page 25882]]

innovative company that became obscenely profitable using good old 
capitalistic tactics. MS software is installed on every computer one 
buys; the manufacturers have no choice in the matter; and Mr. Gates 
is clearly responsible for this monopoly.
    Having worked in law firms for the past 15 years, I have watched 
a superior legal word processing system (Word Perfect/Corel) be 
choked out of existence by MS Windows, an operating system which is 
ONLY friendly to Microsoft software programs.
    I've seen secretaries, paralegals, word processors, lawyers, and 
computer systems managers struggle for hours and hours, trying to 
make non-MS software programs work on their PCs. I've seen law firms 
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars switching everything to 
Microsoft because MS Outlook would not attach a Word Perfect/Corel 
document in readable format.
    I, like thousands of other consumers, have had no choice but to 
buy computers with carloads of Microsoft programs already 
installed--programs which I did not need, did not want, and did not 
use, but paid for nonetheless. Microsoft (Bill Gates) deserves no 
slack from anyone. He should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. 
After all, he will still end up the richest man in the world, 
proving to everyone that unscrupulous business practices do indeed 
pay off in the U.S.
    Tobi Dragert, 800 W. 1st Street, #2307, LA 90012; (213) 680-1016



MTC-00014082

From: joseph mcnicholl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/19/02  11:10pm
Subject: Tunney Act
    What is the Constitutional enabling clause that gives the Tunney 
Act effect in the 50 Union States.



MTC-00014083

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments @doj.ca.gov@inetgw
Date: 1/19/02  11:56pm
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, 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-00014084

From: Wendla Ableson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wendla Ableson
4216 Foxglove Trace
Indianapolis, IN 46237-1316
January 19, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Wendla B. Ableson



MTC-00014085

From: Phillipa Zylanoff
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phillipa Zylanoff
17311 Beechwood
Beverly Hills, MI 48025
January 19, 2002.
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530.
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Phillipa L. Zylanoff, M.D.



MTC-00014086

From: gordon greider
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/19/02  9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
gordon greider
3158e cr 450s
logansport, in 46947
January 19, 2002.
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530.
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of

[[Page 25883]]

stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    gordon greider



MTC-00014087

From: Braden Bruington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not see how Microsoft's proposed settlement would follow 
the nature of the antitrust case against it. A direct abuse of their 
position to promote their products to a population that may be 
unfamiliar to computer technology should not be allowable, let alone 
condonable. I also believe that the damages caused by Microsoft's 
anticompetitive actions far outweigh the resolutions of this 
settlement. As a computer user, I know that my right to choose 
software has been denied by Microsoft's control over the industry. 
Based upon my need to work and communicate with the rest of the 
computing world, I find myself using Microsoft's products for the 
sole reason of an absence of choice. The actions of Microsoft as a 
company to achieve this monopolistic position are common knowledge, 
and because of the extreme repercussions they have had on the 
industry and society, this settlement should not be accepted.
    Sincerely,
    A Concerned Citizen and Computer User



MTC-00014088

From: Frederick Royce Perez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:44am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Dear sir:
    Like a leaking vessel the apparently illegal and patently 
suffocating behaviors represent an assault, perhaps not 
unprecedented but in breadth and scope, or any way you would choose 
to characterize this matter balanced against the facts an 
accomplished blatant assault. That a perversion of the sense of fair 
play formerly ingrained above any power of any law in the ordinary 
intercourse of American life has occurred, is beyond doubt and 
lamentably so. The seeping and leaking of this twisted crushing 
conspiracy to lay waste to honest vendors in a warlike and the 
subsequent loss of honest exchange is pretty much beyond any defense 
in 1997. The thought of investing in a superior product seems to 
have failed to appear as a strategic position of sufficient value to 
these ladies and gentlemen. I could hardly fail to mention that the 
organization has lost in every court they have stepped foot in every 
way and manner presented in this matter.
    The history of dilatory and delaying complaints lain before the 
courts is another example of the stupendous resources available to 
this seemingly obvious criminal enterprise. By these actions one 
see's the scorched earth mentality of men and women at war. These 
matter's to a man who spent an entire life in fair competition for 
an ordinary compensation provide as with the Enron debacle a failure 
of American values as expressed through our history in the political 
arm's of government. Those who would become a government by fiat 
through the strangulation of free enterprise and speech are no 
longer restrained by moral or ethical suasion's if in fact they ever 
are, but more astonishingly the legal system has denied relief 
through justice delayed. The price we pay for permitting bullies to 
swagger are becoming stylish to frown upon, but I think the public 
awareness is easily manipulated by time, time which has no virtue to 
clean the filthy but to put the odor perhaps out of probity. Here 
again the means of this organization to place itself beyond the law 
through the applications of what appears to the native mind massive 
exertion a staggering 666 millions in legal fee's this year, for 
them a trifle, which they possess only by their robbing the 
consumers of our country and our world with the strange compliance 
of our perhaps fatally weak political system, paralyzed by money not 
argument.
    That there is no reasonable argument to satisfy the relevant 
facts against them, has lead to it is fair to say, an open warfare 
on those less strong, some of whom may not have been the best at 
least they were not laughable. That by hardening their attitude 
while thumbing their nose at the institutions of American life and 
forcing our society to be drained of their qualities and vigor by 
the inevitable collapse of intelligence, as compared to the robust 
nature of competition's inspiring branches of thought and 
improvement not even dreamed of, to support this endeavor of 
government by fiat and the fracturing of economy to what has become 
insecure, and the weakest of splinters. Virtually no avenue of 
restraint of trade has failed to be exercised by the people of this 
software company. The dizzying scope of low minded bullying, 
predatory practices, revolts any sense of dignity or decency, and 
regard for American virtues and essence's of fair play, and English 
common law which levels the legal profession to every walk of life 
with a blind eye to privilege as determined by the makers of the law 
not the makers of money and the subsequent privilege.
    I have read the complaint and I have watched for years in sorrow 
as the mediocre software pushed on the world that has cost all of 
our friends and ourselves the freedoms of strength in access to 
knowledge and information by what in any simple analysis is by far 
the costliest system to use in wasting of power of computer system 
drives with leaky, and from poorly written programs, requiring 
systems to live within a narrow form of communication that stands 
alone in reflecting the American will to embrace all culture denied. 
Taken as a direct cause of the effect one can see how difficult it 
might be for an outsized behemoth to repress it's singular wish to 
mold every face in it's image. However it is seen that this is as a 
poor way to write software or any other fine cultural artifact as 
appears in recent or further memory. I believe that in the end the 
common sense of ordinary people like myself struggling all our lives 
for our families with little time or energy left at the end of a 
long day with no secretaries to pick up the slack can see that any 
endeavor suffer's when not requiring devotion to it's subject as 
opposed to subjecting it's objects,and those objects would be us.
    Sincerely
    Frederick Royce Perez.
    CC:Frederick Royce Perez



MTC-00014089

From: Chic Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From past reports in the newspapers and news magazines regarding 
the settlement offered by Microsoft, I see no long term economic 
advantage to the public to be gained by further prolonging this 
litigation on a State by State basis.
    The settlement offered seems to be reasonable, and the best for 
all concerned that is likely to be achieved.



MTC-00014090

From: Stephen Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  2:23am
Subject: Consultant/end user comments on your proposed settlement
    Nov. 16>
    I'm a computer consultant. I believe a stripped-down, basic 
version of Windows should be required, for less cost than the 
bloated version. The OS is like a chassis upon which each user 
builds his or her software set that s/he needs to use to get work 
done. Microsoft has always complicated things by putting in extra 
stuff to try to kill competitors and never has focused on stable, 
quality products. Internet Explorer in Windows 98 never had to be 
commingled with the operating system for technical reasons. They 
could have made it a removable component but purposely engineered it 
to be nearly impossible for the end user to remove. (It is possible. 
There's a product that does it called ``98lite'' [www.98lite.net]) 
In Windows XP, one can't (easily, if at all) remove Outlook Express, 
Windows Messenger, Media Player, nor Internet Explorer. When there 
are problems with these applications, they can't be solved by un- 
and reinstalling. This has always meant wiping everything off and 
starting a clean install from scratch in the past, and I don't see 
that changing. It's a major hassle and waste of time, and all of it 
is unnecessary. Microsoft only does it to shut out competitors. I 
cannot choose what to have on my own computer, nor can other users. 
We also can't buy a home PC from a major manufacturer without 
Windows already installed. None of this is being addressed.
    The proposed settlement provides no punishment for all the 
damage MS has caused to the industry, and to customers. All my 
*personal* frustration with MS products, which I have no choice but 
to use for work, receive no redress in the DOJ settlement.

[[Page 25884]]

    Sincerely,
    Stephen Frost
    4575 Campus Ave, #5
    San Diego, CA 92116



MTC-00014091

From: dave kisner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you, for the opportunity to comment on this subject. I 
would like to offer a suggestion on how best to settle the current 
case with Microsoft.
    I think the settlement solution could be quite simple. It seems 
to me that the punishment should fit the crime, and in this case the 
crime is the way Microsoft used it's monopoly position and it's web 
browser ``Internet Explorer'' to do harm to a competitor. I think, 
the best way to punish them for this would be to take away the 
weapon they used to commit the crime. In this case it was their 
internet browser ``Internet Explorer''. Take away their browser 
technology and make it available as an open source product. At the 
same time, do not allow them to produce another browser to compete 
with it. This will hit Microsoft right where it hurts, and more 
importantly, the punishment will have fit the crime. You also send a 
clear message that attempting to use their monopoly position like 
this again, may result in losing the very technology they are trying 
to control.
    Just my 2 cents,
    Sincerely,
    David Kisner



MTC-00014092

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I want to congratulate you on your courageous and effective 
leadership during this time of national crisis.
    However, the purpose of this letter is to enter a plea that the 
Federal Court hearing the Microsoft antitrust case would accept the 
current settlement of that case. The current settlement encourages 
consumer product choice, promotes product innovation, and provides 
nonMicrosoft related computer and software manufacturers with 
confidence in marketing their own products. I feel that the current 
settlement is fair on those grounds.
    I trust that the Federal Court will accept the current 
settlement.
    Thank you for having considered my plea.
    Respectfully,
    Larry Rodgers



MTC-00014093

From: David Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:49am
    This whole suit stinks. Antitrust laws are so perverted that you 
can get sued for raising price, lowering price, or keeping the price 
the same. Microsoft did nothing wrong except to revolutionize the 
way we use computers and they did not pay protection money to big 
government. DROP THIS CASE!
    DRL



MTC-00014094

From: noah read
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i don't pretend to know a lot about the subtleties of law but it 
is quite obvious to me that the proposed settlement is a travesty to 
the general public in the prosecution of this monopoly. this 
settlement serves as nothing more than a slap on the wrist to a 
company who rose to the top not because of a superior product but 
because of piracy and cut-throat business practices. this will do 
nothing to shake the hold that microsoft holds over the computer 
industry. there are much better products out there who deserve a 
chance to be seen but because of microsoft's monopoly they never 
would get the chance. do something to hurt them, something that they 
will actually feel and that might impact the way they conduct 
business.
    noah read



MTC-00014095

From: Dan Paight
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  4:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft's arrogance never ceases to amaze me. As 
``punishment'' for their illegal and unethical past they are willing 
to ``donate'' tons of old PC's and Microsoft CD's into the education 
market. In any other industry this would be called ``dumping.''



MTC-00014096

From: Brian Correia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    This settlement proposal from Microsoft is inadequate and 
unjust. Reparations should be monetary and large enough to at least 
partially compensate for damages while also serving as punishment 
and a deterrent. Under no circumstances should Microsoft be allowed 
to further damage competition by dumping its products into the 
education market. This proposal is worse than not good enough, its 
clearly wrong.
    Thank you for requesting my input.
    Signed,
    Concerned Consumer



MTC-00014097

From: bernita colthorp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs: I am in great favor of settling this senseless lawsuit. 
Enough is enough. When someone has a good idea, helpful to the 
economy, they should not be prosecuted for it. Why can't the courts 
get onto something important, like upholding enterprising citzens 
instead of punishing someone able to earn money--rather than winning 
the jackpot.
    Sincerely.
    Bernita Colthorp



MTC-00014098

From: Phil Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO COLLECTION OF SPECIAL-PURPOSE RESTRAINTS CAN ALTER THE 
STRUCTURAL REALITY OF MICROSOFT'S MONOPOLY OVER THE DESKTOP OS.
    I am a programmer, software developer, and entrepreneur. I am 
writing to say that the proposed settlement is woefully short of 
addressing the fundamental problem of the Microsoft monopoly. Other 
people have commented on various technical aspects of the proposed 
settlement (such as enforceability, etc.), and I won't reiterate 
those points. The larger problem is that no collection of special-
purpose restraints (such as forcing Microsoft to cede OEM desktop 
control, etc.) can alter the structural reality of Microsoft's 
monopoly over the desktop OS. That is like negotiating over the size 
and shape of electrical outlets with the company that owns the 
electric grid. Microsoft's monopolistic advantage is much broader 
and deeper than any particular business practice that might be 
restrained.
    What hasn't been discussed publicly is the idea that it is 
APPROPRIATE for the OS to be treated monopolistically. There is 
great benefit, for businesses, consumers, and developers, to be had 
from standardization on a single OS. But we will receive this 
benefit only if the OS is ADMINISTERED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY, for the 
common good. Microsoft certainly has not done so. The first step in 
this direction is to force Microsoft to split off its OS unit from 
every other business unit.



MTC-00014099

From: Daniel Mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:08am
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 
etc.
    daniel mark



MTC-00014100

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern at the Dept. of Justice:
    The carping against Bill Gates and Microsoft comes loudest from 
a couple of ego-maniacs who do the same and would do even more with 
their own companies if they could. Bill Gates and Microsoft have 
done what they had to do to succeed in that marketplace against the 
other sharks in the water.
    I support some degree of government regulation of business 
practices. For the benefit of everyone, these powerful people need 
to play by some rules. But Microsoft's success has had a beneficial 
effect in terms of establishing a common platform for most 
computing. Without that, the benefits of computer technology would 
not be as widespread as they are, and it would be extremely 
expensive for businesses and

[[Page 25885]]

consumers to accomplish anything across various platforms. Even the 
fact that there is just one other semi-popular browser besides 
Internet Explorer has ballooned development costs at the company I 
work for, where we are making training materials available via the 
Internet. We'd be so much further along if we didn't have to test 
and fix everything we did so it would run on two different browsers, 
and our programs could be so much more engaging if we didn't have to 
develop to the lowest common denominator of both browsers (which 
denominator, by the way, is quite a bit lower on the non-Microsoft 
browser).
    Please don't create chaos in the computer industry just so the 
second-richest megalomaniac in the world can satisfy his selfish 
desire to be number one. Things were going better for consumers and 
the economy before the senators from the home states of Microsoft's 
competitors started skewing the picture by political means. 
Microsoft's competitors are no more altruistic or deserving than 
Microsoft. Give us all a break.
    Eric Anderson
    7110 E. CR 700 N.
    Brownsburg, IN 46112



MTC-00014101

From: N. Hagan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:45am
Subject: SETTLE THE MICROSOFT CASE
    Enough already. These so-called ``class action'' suits are a 
crime, the anti-trust suit is a waste. It is also moot and 
detrimental to the industry and our economy. Please, settle this 
case.
    Thank you.



MTC-00014102

From: Roberts, George Gordon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:47am
Subject: Please break-up the Operating System monopoly!
    I would suggest that the following measures be taken against 
Microsoft:
    1. Stop Microsoft from requiring computer manufacturers to place 
their operating system on all new computers. Presently it is very 
difficult to find a new system without windows unless you are 
willing to build it yourself. This excludes about 99% of computer 
users, and effectively grants Microsoft a monopoly right off the 
bat.
    2. Require Microsoft to be more open with its Operating System 
code (i.e. the program itself) and File System formats. This would 
allow other manufacturers to design competing software without a 
lengthy process of ``back-engineering'' (that is to say guessing at 
the contents of what has been up to now a ``black box''). Only then 
can other companies be able to design competing software at a 
reasonable price. This would benefit Windows users as well by giving 
them a greater variety of software (that would, incidentally, have 
fewer bugs as a result of the greater number of people that could 
correct the program for themselves as a result of being able to spot 
it in the program code itself).
    3. Prohibit Microsoft from forming cartels with hardware 
manufacturers. Presently, many pieces of hardware are made to be 
specifically incompatible with Non-Microsoft operating systems. This 
is possible because part of the hardware function is replaced by 
software code that is kept secret by both the hardware manufacturer 
and Microsoft. Thus, someone wishing to try a Non-Microsoft 
Operating System often finds that key pieces of their hardware, 
(such as their modem) does not work, and are thereby forced to 
endure unnecessary hassle and expense, and thus discouraged from 
exploring alternatives.
George Gordon Roberts B.S., M.S.
1537 Fontaine
Madison Heights, MI 48071



MTC-00014103

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello Ms. Hesse,
    Please include my Emil in the file in ``protest'' of Microsoft's 
proposed settlement.
    I am sure you have heard them all. To allow this would be a 
gross travesty of justice in regard to the millions of consumers & 
businesses that benefit and adhere to the law, not because they 
don't have billions to fight such a suit. But because there 
collective conscience tells them it's the right thing to do. Thanks 
for your time.
    Best regards,
    Paul Zawodny, Consumer/Business owner.



MTC-00014104

From: Don Starns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:45am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I oppose the settlement I've read about. This only extends the 
illegal monopoly into our public schools. Microsoft should be fined, 
and also made to pay serious damages.
    Don Starns
    215 e 23rd st
    Houston TX 77008



MTC-00014105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:02am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I would urge the judiciary to seriously consider the acceptance 
of Microsoft's offer to settle. For over ten years, we have been 
deluged with propoganda on the value and importance of having 
computers available to students in low income families. Now, when 
the government gets the chance to dramatically improve this 
situation, the judicial system invents ways to hamper real social 
progress.



MTC-00014106

From: twodogs/etech67
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:15am
1302 18th Street
Tell City, IN 47586
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take a moment to express my views regarding the 
Microsoft antitrust case. I feel that the settlement reached by the 
Department of Justice was fair and reasonable. It will allow 
Microsoft to remain the industry leader while granting the 
competition more chances to compete, and the consumers more choices 
between products.
    Microsoft has agreed to concessions that have made precedent 
with regards to antitrust cases. Microsoft has agreed to document 
and disclose for use by its competitors, various interfaces that are 
internal to the Windows operating system. Also, computer makers have 
been granted broad new rights to configure Windows so as to promote 
non-Microsoft programs that compete with programs already included 
within Windows. It appears that Microsoft has agreed to give up much 
of its competitive advantage and market share in an effort to 
conclude this case.
    To put it in perspective, it would be ridiculous to see Nike 
carry the Reebok logo on its most popular products. Microsoft is 
willing to take on significant restrictions, however, so I will not 
oppose them. This settlement will bring a much-needed end to this 
case, and I support it.
    Sincerely,
    Ellis Howard



MTC-00014107

From: The Galli's
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read attached letter as to the Microsoft Case.
    Thank You,
John Galli
28821 Trenton Court
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
[email protected]
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft and common sense policies, I write 
you with concern over the recent developments in the settlement. Not 
only do I think that the entire process was ridiculous from the 
beginning, but to go even further and delay the settlement after 
three years of negotiations is too much. This settlement is part of 
a very well thought out process and should be enforced immediately. 
Further litigation will only force our technology industry to fall 
behind in the global market.
    As our economy continues to dip, we need to support our 
technology industry in any way possible. By supporting this 
settlement, we allow our technology industry to further focus on 
innovation. Microsoft has done their part to make drastic changes 
for this settlement, and now it is our turn. Some of the changes 
agreed upon are in licensing, marketing and even design. All of 
which are beneficial to our IT sector as a whole. This is certainly 
why we need to help support the settlement and get our technology 
industry back to business. Please help to stop any

[[Page 25886]]

further action against this agreement. Let us help support the IT 
sector and get us back in gear.
    As a Nation, we have to move on to more pressing matters and 
stop beating a ``dead Horse''. Enough is enough
    Sincerely,
    John Galli



MTC-00014108

From: M. G. Fred Kick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I thought the case against Microsoft (there should never been a 
case) was settled many month ago. Please lets get it over with and 
settle so we can use the taxpayers money in essential services to 
the public and Microsoft can get on with further development, bring 
new products to market and increase the governments tax revenue. 
Lets get it over with in the publics interest.
    Thanks,
    M.G. Fred Kick



MTC-00014109

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:12am
Subject: Opinion on disposition of Microsoft action
    Dear Sirs:
    I am strongly in favor of NOT continuing the action against 
Microsoft any further. This cannot be good for the economy. I 
believe the actions already taken were fair and equitable to all 
concerned and should suffice.
    Thank You.
    Donna Moraff
    4 Haynes Avenue
    West islip, NY 11995



MTC-00014110

From: John Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Letter to Ashcroft
John F. Ford Jr.
Telephone 910-846-2235
E-mail [email protected]
135 Burlington St W
Holden Beach, NC 28462
January 20, 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 last year between Microsoft and the Justice Department. 
There is no doubt ending this litigation is in the public's interest 
and will benefit the computer industry.
    The terms of the settlement are comprehensive and require many 
adjustments to Microsoft's former business practices. One area of 
change is in the area of intellectual property rights. Microsoft has 
agreed that if a third party's exercise of any options provided for 
by the settlement would infringe any Microsoft intellectual property 
right, Microsoft will provide the third party with license to the 
necessary intellectual property on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms. Also, any third party who feels Microsoft is falling short of 
their obligations can lodge a complaint with a Technical Committee 
to be formed under the agreement.
    The settlement will give a boost to the economy during this 
current recession. I hope your support for this settlement will 
continue and no further action will be taken on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    John Ford



MTC-00014111

From: Bob Jensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  12:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft definitely needs to be punished for its monopolistic 
market activities. But they should not be allowed under any 
settlement agreement to provide free or reduced price computers or 
software to schools. Apple Computer holds a significant portion of 
that market and if Microsoft is allowed to provide free or reduced 
price computers or software, that will only increase Microsoft's 
market share which is the biggest problem with Microsoft.
CenOreGeoPub
Robert A. Jensen
20180 Briggs Road
Bend, OR 97701
541-389-4275
[email protected]
http://users.bendnet.com/bjensen/



MTC-00014112

From: Faulhaber, Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir;
    I think it is very important that the Microsoft settlement is 
accepted. The last thing this country needs now is more litigation 
on this issues. The antitrust laws should first serve the consumers. 
The consumers have spoken with their dollars and purchased Microsoft 
products where they were superior to others in the market and/or at 
a lower price. Second the antitrust laws are not meant to protect 
businesses form competition. Those special interest groups and 
companies who have not be able to successfully compete with 
Microsoft should work on their own products and company and not ask 
the Government to hand cuff Microsoft so they can win in the market 
place. And third, unfettered competition among business generally 
benefits consumers even if a single firm captures most or all of the 
market. This is the case in the software market.
    The consumer wins and is winning with lower priced better 
products. Settle this case now and let the high tech software 
industry get back to helping our economy thrive again.
    Robert Faulhaber



MTC-00014113

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable DOJ,
    I am an Information Technologist of nearly twenty years 
experience.
    It is my humble opinion that Microsoft have ``the book'' thrown 
at them for their consistant obstruction and abuse with 
technological progress. Their sheer and overwhelming power dictates 
Information Technology policy at American business'' at a great 
cost--similar only to a heroin dealer luring potential addicts and 
doing whatever possible to retain power over the user through 
manipulating standards, pricing and practices--then by releasing 
dangerously flawed techology with the hopes that ``next time'' it 
will be better. The sheer number of security holes, comparatively 
over priced software, predatory practices without concern for true 
innovation and the complete abuse of all that is good in this 
country disgusts me.
    Please don't let them get away with this again. There are many 
great companies in the US that need to grow, but Microsoft is taking 
all the sunlight and water away.
Respectfully yours,
Russell Maggio
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014114

From: Steve Bouton
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Bouton
705 Hinman Avenue 2-A
Evanston, IL 60202
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 J.B. Bouton



MTC-00014115

From: Alan L. Hansen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  10:12am

[[Page 25887]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan L. Hansen
124 North 155st
Shoreline, Wa 98133-5926
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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-00014116

From: Landon Hundley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom This May Concern:
    This email serves as an objection to The Justice Department's 
proposed settlement against Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has 
been found guilty by 2 courts of illegal practices and violating the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act. When AT&T was sued by the Justice 
Department, the company ultimately agreed to be split into different 
``baby bells.'' The settlement was punishment against AT&T. The 
proposed settlement between the DOJ and Microsoft would be a slap on 
the wrist and would not punish Microsoft for any of the illegal 
practices they committed.
    Microsoft would not be punished if the DOJ proceeds with this 
proposed settlement. No one would benefit from this settlement but 
Microsoft.
    Thank you:
    Landon Hundley



MTC-00014117

From: Bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    Microsoft is at it again!
    It seems that Microsoft wants to control the 3D API arena in 
favor of its own Direct3D. What better way to strangle its mortal 
enemys (Linux, OSX, etc. . . )
    I hope you consider this in your decision to stop this software 
behemoth from bullying everyone to see their way.
    Humberto Ballesteros IT/MIS
    From go2mac.com:
    Is Microsoft Trying to Kill OpenGL?
    Thu, 17 Jan 2002, 07:04
    The Register is running a story about how Microsoft has aquired 
key 3D patents from SGI. 3D technology is not just for video games 
and immersive systems, but it is also part of the infrastructure 
that supports important sectors of the economy, such as design 
visualization and scientific imaging. Such critical infrastructure 
should be based on open standards, but what happens if Microsoft 
starts an new round of lawsuits in this arena? What will happen to 
Mesa3D? It is often very difficult to obtain Apple support for 3D 
devices, and I wonder what this deal means for Apple users.



MTC-00014118

From: James Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Java and its collaborative community provide our company with 
many value propositions that Microsoft products do not. Working for 
a small company where every dollar counts, Java is a part of our 
core strategy set for moving forward. I would hate to see anything 
help Microsoft continue to hinder companies that choose Java-centric 
solutions. They have already effected us again this year by taking 
the Java Virtual Machine out of the browser.
    Thanks
James Wilson
Director of Software Engineering
Monsterdaata, Inc.
32 E 31st Street
New York, NY 10016
212.447.2000x45
[email protected]



MTC-00014119

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:09pm
Subject: I disapprove of Proposed Final Judgement in US vs Microsoft
    CC: Russell--Feingold@ feingold.senate.gov@inetgw,senato. . . 
    I'm not a lawyer, but have an Electrical Engineering degree and 
have been supporting other hardware and software Engineers in 
computer aided software and hardware design since 1988. I have been 
involved with computers since 1973.
    It means something that I am spending my heartbeats, my time, 
putting together these comments. They are heart felt; I believe this 
ruling will adversely affect millions in there daily experience with 
software; it will impact people's livelyhoods- it does matter.
    http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3952/1/:
    The result is the proposed settlement, which would grant 
Microsoft its operating system monopoly--indeed, contains wording 
such that it would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to r 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 embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law 
and upon all but the most twisted notion of justice.
    I do not understand why the Department of Justice caved in so 
easily to Microsoft's demands. I want freedom of choice in the 
software operating system market! I'm frustrated that for years our 
department has been paying for Microsoft software on my PC that I 
never use, don't need, and do not want! IT departments all over the 
country have been brainwashed into thinking the Microsoft software 
is the only safe choice-this lemming mentality is foul and 
counterproductive; we're giving to much power away `to Microsoft.
    As the quote below suggests the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ), 
would allow Microsoft to write their code in such a way as to block 
non-windows operating systems from running it.
    http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html:
    the PFJ (itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., restricts 
information released by those sections to be used ``for the sole 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product''. 
This prohibits ISVs from using the information for the purpose of 
writing operating systems that interoperate with Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used ``for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the information for the 
purpose of writing operating systems that interoperate with Windows 
programs. Specifically LINUX has two popular tools ``WINE'' and 
``SAMBA'' which allow windows software to run on LINUX and Windows 
users to share files with LINUX boxes. Both of these applications 
will become illegal and inoperable under the PFJ if understand it 
correctly. This would be a severe blow to the viability of LINUX as 
a competitive OS to windows. Please ammend the settlement to protect 
the viabiilty of ``WINE'' and ``SAMBA''.
    http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs. I want 
to be able to buy a PC with out any Windows software loaded, and 
with out paying a dime to Microsoft. Apparently the PFJ allows 
Microsoft to ``retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal 
Computers containing a competing Microsoft operating system''. I 
object to this! The below excerpt strikes me as direct 
discrimination against open source software by Microsoft. Microsoft 
is

[[Page 25888]]

specifically preventing ISVs from bundling code they create with the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK (software development kit) 
together with any open source software. This strongly limits the 
ability of open source software applications to compete with 
Microsoft. I do NOT understand how this is not outlawed and in fact 
may be condoned by the PFJ. See excerpt below:
    http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html:
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with popular non-
Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples are given 
below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states 
. . .  you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . .  Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation; software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); . . .  Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, 
are shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated 
redistributable components. Applications that wish to use them must 
include the add-ons, even though they might later become a standard 
part of Windows. Microsoft often provides those SDKs under End User 
License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open Source 
applications.
    This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their applications 
under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the enduser has a 
sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API installed, which is 
often not the case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems The Microsoft Platform SDK, 
together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The Microsoft 
Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and 
distribute . . .  the Redistributable Components. . .  provided that 
(a) you distribute the Redistributable Components only in 
conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use 
with a Microsoft Operating System Product. . . '' This makes it 
illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems. By allowing these 
exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is contributing to the Applications 
Barrier to Entry faced by competing operating systems. Microsoft 
willfully acts to thwart competition using what in my opinion are 
the software equivalent of ``dirty tricks''; they have demonstrated 
this behavior more than once, why does the PFJ show so much trust in 
Microsoft- they not to be regulated; they can NOT be trusted:
    http://kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html:
    3. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the 
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run 
programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not 
operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS 
API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added 
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's 
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against 
Microsoft in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's 
consolidated response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary 
judgment.) The judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented 
sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were part of 
an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That case was settled out 
of court in 1999, and no court has fully explored the alleged 
conduct.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software. My understanding of Microsoft's latest 
operating system is that is has become more and more ``paternal'' 
and intrusive--father Redmond knows what's best for you, and will 
learn all about you. . an arrogant and disrespectful attitude. .
    My view is that Microsoft has stifled innovation. The have taken 
years and years to catch up to he competition in robust reliable 
operating systems. They have not won because they create the best 
products, they win because of their dirty tricks, and excellent 
marketing. In general I view their software is a closed black bug 
filled box. Users find the bugs, and users pay Microsoft to fix 
them. The process of debugging their software takes years of end 
users time and is very frustrating.
    In contrast my experience with Open Source software (GNU tools 
and LINUX), and with Hewlett Packard or SUN UNIX has been wonderful. 
Please see http://kegel.com/remedy/ for additional links. regards,
--Tom Rodman [email protected]>
2811 S Wentworth Av
Milwaukee WI 53207



MTC-00014120

From: Bill Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:40pm
Subject: Tunney Act Comments: Objections to the Proposed Microsoft 
Settlement.
    CC: william, delahunt@mail. [email protected] Office@sta. . . 
    To: U.S. Department of Justice ([email protected])
    From: William M. Meyer
    Re. Proposed Final Settle in United States v. Microsoft Corp.
    I'm writing to protest the proposed settlement with Microsoft in 
United States v. Microsoft Corp., under the provisions of the Tunney 
Act (Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. ? 16) As a 
professional in computer, with over 20 years of experience in 
computer networking and Internet development, I believe that the 
proposed settlement is fundamentally flawed and will fail completely 
to address the root level problems that the Microsoft Windows 
monopoly poses to this country.
    In short, I don't believe that the proposed settlement provides 
adequate redress to American businesses and consumers for the real 
and tangible damages that they have suffered due to Microsoft's 
illegal abuse of its Windows monopoly, nor will the proposed 
settlement ensure that Microsoft doesn't continue it's illegal 
business practices in the future. The finalized outcome of United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp.2d 30 (D.DC 2000) will have 
lasting, substantive and historical consequences on American 
businesses, individuals and the future effectiveness of antitrust 
law in the United States.
    The proposed final settlement does not demonstratively provide 
of the claimed benefits to consumers as stated in the Proposed Final 
Judgement. In addition, it offers little or no relief or restitution 
to the American Businesses and individuals who comprise the victims 
of its illegal abusive practices. The Final Proposed Settlement 
should be rejected and, absent a completely new Settlement Proposal 
from the Defendant, the Court should continue with the Penalty Phase 
of United States v. Microsoft Corp. towards the goal of achieving a 
settlement or judgement that adequately and permanently addresses 
these issues.
    I offer the following arguments to the Court in support of my 
request to reject the Proposed Final Settlement.
    Microsoft's Monopoly gives it undue political and economic 
influence and threatens compliance. The de facto monopoly of the 
Windows operating system and Office business suite makes the 
majority of the American businesses and individuals

[[Page 25889]]

dependent on these products in the course of their daily activities. 
Thus, everything related to the Microsoft .Windows products almost 
immediately impacts the majority of our institutions. This, in 
itself, is an enormous problem with potentially devastating 
consequences for our Country, freedoms, privacy and well being. The 
pervasiveness of Microsoft's Monopoly and America's current 
dependance on Microsoft's products prevents the Proposed Final 
Settlement's ability to deliver on every point of the OVERVIEW OF 
THE RELIEF section of the Competitive Impact Statement in that every 
action in takes will necessarily have huge significance to American 
Businesses and individual consumers and the ability of the 
Government to react effectively after the fact in restraining 
Microsoft's actions will be practically impossible. This is 
evidenced already in the significant business actions Microsoft has 
already taken during the course of United States v. Microsoft Corp. 
which are not addressed by the Proposed Final Settlement. In short, 
by the time the proposed regulatory system can react, to an action 
by Microsoft, the result will be a fait accompli. Technology in 
general, and Microsoft in particular move to fast to be effectively 
regulated under the proposed agreement. The Windows XP and Microsoft 
.Net are two relevant examples of Microsoft technology that has 
outstripped the proposed relief before it is even in place. The fact 
that nine states have rejected the proposed settlement suggests that 
Microsoft's political power is influencing the DOJ to accept a 
settlement that is not in the interests of those states in the 
opinion of their Attorney's General. Window XP and Microsoft .Net 
vastly extend Microsoft's monopoly The case itself has proven that 
Microsoft illegally abused it's monopoly in the past to the 
detriment of it's customers and the American public. In the time 
since that ruling, Microsoft has embarked on the most ambitious and 
aggressive expansion of its business areas in its history. The 
Windows .Net platform is designed from the bottom up to be a 
required participant in every business transaction conducted online. 
Whether they achieve that goal or not will only be known in the 
fullness of time, but the fact is that they are putting every 
resource they can towards that end. This point directly addresses 
the Proposed Settlement's OVERVIEW OF THE RELIEF points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 
6, 7 & 8.
    In addition, it violates the spirit of the Proposed Final 
Solution which, ``. . . seeks to eliminate Microsoft's illegal 
practices, to prevent recurrence of the same ``or similar practices 
and to restore the competitive threat that middleware products posed 
prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct. `` The Microsoft Windows 
monopoly hurts American productivity An equally serious problem is 
the increasing cost to American business and individuals of 
Microsoft's predatory business practices. The constant stream of 
required updates, patches, and new releases of Microsoft products is 
a constant and expensive drain on the American economy. At the same 
time that most businesses are increasingly dependent on Microsoft 
products, they are finding that the financial and productivity costs 
of these products to be increasing dramatically. This trend will 
only increase as the pervasiveness of the Microsoft Windows platform 
increases and it represents an unfair abuse on Microsoft's monopoly 
on American businesses and individual consumers. Microsoft's the 
cost of Microsoft Windows products, as they relate to end users is 
not addressed at all in the Proposed Final Settlement, but any 
settlement or judgement that is to provide effective relief must 
address these issues.
    Microsoft's New Licensing Practices are abusive The Proposed 
Final Settlement, Section III A discusses measures to protect OEM's 
from predatory and anticompetitive practices by Microsoft. It is an 
irreperable flaw in the Proposed Final Settlement that it doesn't 
address these same protections for American business and individual 
consumers of Microsoft products. A current example of Microsoft's 
abuse in this area is it's aggressive campaign to proactively police 
product licensing within it's user base. Through it's own efforts 
and through proxy groups like the SBA, Microsoft has become an 
increasingly intrusive and hostile presence in the American business 
community via their costly, time consuming and abusive ``Licensing 
Audit,'' and ``Amnesty,'' programs. These practices directly target 
business and individual consumers of Microsoft products using a 
``guilty until proven innocent,'' premise and the thinly veiled 
threat of legal action to force compliance via expensive and time 
consuming software audits. These programs reveal a complete disdain 
for American businesses and consumers that is unprecedented 
historically.
    Compliance itself is a vague and shifting target due to the 
constantly changing nature and terms of Microsoft's software 
licensing policies. A complete and confident understanding of the 
licensing agreements accompanying most Microsoft products is, 
literally, impossible for anyone without a sound knowledge of 
contract law. At the same time, laws such as the UCITA are 
increasing the enforceability of these shrink wrap license 
agreement. Microsoft has publicly announced that it intends to shift 
its emphasis from a User License Agreement to a Subscription-based 
model wherein they will receive regular required payments from users 
of their products and have the ability to force upgrades on their 
user base at will. Speaking as a computer professional and a 
consultant representing a variety of business and individual 
clients, I can say that no one I know thinks such an arrangement 
would benefit them or their business. This issue must be addressed 
with effective and permanent relief in any final settlement or 
judgement. National Security could be compromised by the Microsoft 
Monopoly.
    Finally, although it is not addressed explicitly in the Proposed 
Final Settlement, the real and significant threat to National 
security must be considered in any settlement or judgement of United 
States v. Microsoft Corp. Many computer professionals and security 
experts believe that we will soon face a terrorist attack that 
focuses and is waged against our information systems and national 
Internet infrastructure. They are basing their believes on their 
daily experience in coping with the virtually continuous computer 
virus attacks that are focused on Microsoft products and which 
exploit programming flaws in these software applications. In point 
of fact, any objective review of Microsoft's security performance 
would have to conclude that they are not capable of producing a 
secure version of their operating system. Their most recent release, 
Windows XP was vigorously touted by Microsoft as their most secure 
version yet. This seems almost whimsical in retrospect in that 
reality of Windows XP since its public release has been the 
announcement of one security-related bug after another. This has 
culminated with the recent UniversalPlug&Play bug which allows a 
hacker to take complete control of a Windows XP system and do 
anything that the authorized user could do. The security flaws in 
Microsoft Windows cost American businesses and individuals billions 
of dollars in lost productivity, untold aggravation and are 
potentially disastrous in the event of a determined terrorist 
attach. Anyone familiar with the technical debate on Windows 
security will confirm the potential for a DDoS attack against 
Windows XP that could conceivably shut down the Internet in America. 
As a monopolist, Microsoft should be subject to legal liabilities 
for the direct losses incurred through the use of it's faulty 
products. This issue is not addressed in the Proposed Final 
Settlement, but it must be considered in any effective and permanent 
settlement.
    Summary, Conclusions and Request to the Court In summary, I 
believe that the Proposed Final Settlement does not ``. . . 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.'' 
The consequence of the adoption of the Final Proposed Settlement 
would result in the continued abuse of the Microsoft Windows 
monopoly and further damage to American business and individual 
consumer. For a multitude of reasons this cannot be allowed to 
happen. The United States v. Microsoft Corp. may be the best chance 
that we will ever get to effectively solve this problem and rectify 
Microsoft's abuse of it's Windows Monopoly.
    For the reasons stated in the body of this message, and others, 
I encourage the Court to unequivocally reject the current propose 
Settlement and begin the penalty phase of the case again with the 
stated goal of providing adequate redress to American business and 
individual consumers of Microsoft products and to ensure that the 
illegal monopolistic actions Microsoft has been convicted of will 
not reoccur ever again.
    Thank you for your consideration,
Bill Meyer
President, The Meyer Group
16 Jae Road
Falmouth, MA 02114
508.457.5558
[email protected]

[[Page 25890]]



MTC-00014121

From: Dendra Best
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Renata B. Hesse
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement. I have grave 
concerns that the terms merely allow Microsoft to further imbed its 
products into the education and library cultures. I have first hand 
experience of the restrictions placed on use of so called Gates 
Foundation donations of CPU's which come pre loaded and unable to be 
added to with anything other than MS products!
    They are currently proposing a Gates Foundation project which 
will effectively create another monopoly of State Library systems on 
line data bases and delivery of ``technology'', substitute MS and 
CISCO, training for library staffs. While it is certainly true that 
other vendors such as Dell and Apple offer alternatives--it is 
almost impossible to match the MS juggernaut! Dendra Best



MTC-00014122

From: Paul Stanley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Honorable Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing this email as both a concerned citizen and a past 
observer of Microsoft's business practices in the PC industry while 
I was employed by Hewlett-Packard.
    I am concerned that the proposed final judgment currently under 
review does not adequately protect the public or private enterprise 
from the power that Microsoft has and uses as the de facto 
monopolistic PC operating system provider. My concerns include the 
following points:
    1) Enforcement mechanisms are administratively complex and lack 
the ability to impose sufficient penalties on Microsoft, enabling 
future unbridled behavior by Microsoft due to the disproportionate 
magnitude and timeliness of possible penalties.
    2) Admitted violations are not sufficiently accounted for. This 
sends a clear signal that the risk/reward ratio for monopolistic 
behavior is clearly biased towards exercising it.
    3) Anti-competitive behavior is not adequately defined or 
restricted, leaving far too many loopholes for Microsoft to continue 
their monopolistic manipulation of both mature and emerging 
technologies. When potential financial gain of new, innovative 
technology companies is reduced through such behavior, capital 
ceases to flow to where the US economy has its greatest potential 
return. Any judgment needs to do a much better job around issues 
such as middleware bolting and communication protocols, manipulation 
of emerging standards such as Java, and financial arrangements that 
prevent Microsoft customers from supporting other competitive 
software.
    Thank you for your consideration of these points.
Paul Stanley
1771 Via Cortina
San Jose, CA 95120
650.417.2059 x5738
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014125

From: Leo Kreymborg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my great disappointment at the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft Corporation. This settlement has no 
potential for reversing the suffocating control that Microsoft has 
over end users and software developers.
    It used to be just a few short years ago that users had some 
choice when it came to applications. WordPerfect, for example, 
formally the preeminent word processor, was destroyed by Microsoft 
predatory practices. After almost eliminating WordPerfect from the 
marketplace, Microsoft finished the job by buying 25% of Corel, the 
publishers of WordPerfect. It is no surprise that WordPerfect for 
Unix platforms has since been discontinued. Time after time, 
Microsoft has destroyed competing companies by hiding the details of 
the operating system from them, bundling software, purchasing 
competitor's companies, and many other practices designed to 
eliminate the competition.
    Microsoft's latest moves to force registration of its software 
and operating system, compel business users into operating system 
upgrades, and its moves toward yearly licensing fees are typical 
monopolistic practices: once the competition has been eliminated and 
the customers have no choice, compel them to pay more for your 
product.
    Microsoft has monopolized the operating systems, all the popular 
applications, and the internet browser. It is further extending its 
stranglehold on the computer industry by licensing one of its 
proprietary programming languages, Visual Basic, for use in 
unrelated 3rd party applications. 3rd party developers, not wishing 
to be left without good connectivity to Microsoft Windows, are 
coerced to license Visual Basic for use in their applications. 
Microsoft thereby extends its reach and control over the industry it 
yet another way. It am quite saddened that this proposed settlement 
has no potential for remedying this situation. Except for a valiant 
few who use Linux and other alternatives, that vast majority of 
businesses, individuals, developers, and government agencies are 
essentially forced to use the myriad array of Microsoft products. 
The entanglement of the operating system, the software, the browser, 
and the programming languages make disconnecting any one of them 
difficult, and makes switching all of them almost impossible for 
most users.
    Microsoft is a monopolistic predator whose practices are 
destroying innovation, and essentially extorting billions of dollars 
annually from users and government agencies. I implore you not to 
permit this settlement to go forward, and to take forceful action 
against Microsoft on behalf of the American people.
Leo Kreymborg
San Diego, California
[email protected]



MTC-00014126

From: Jeff Wolfe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  2:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government wore ol Bill down, so he took the expedient way 
out. The whole prosecution was typical of government penalizing 
those who are successful. Microsoft has money so the government went 
after him until he gave up. The whole situation makes me ashamed of 
my country.



MTC-00014127

From: Shirlain Kramlich
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirlain Kramlich
6024 N. Country Lane
Aberdeen, SD 57401
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Shirlain Kramlich



MTC-00014128

From: Jerry Proud
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Proud
Rt. 1 Box 67
Marsing,, ID 83639
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:

[[Page 25891]]

    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Proud



MTC-00014129

From: Mike (038) Sherri Unger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I have read the proposed settlement between US DOJ, the nine 
states and Microsoft. I fully support the proposed agreement. I 
believe the agreement is tough, reasonable and fair to all parties 
involved. The enforcement provisions of the agreement are sufficient 
to ensure Microsoft complies with the agreement. All of the states 
involved in this litigation should be held to this agreement. Most 
of all I believe it will benefit consumers. It is time to move 
beyond litigation on this matter. This case has adversely affected 
consumers because of its negative impact on the U.S. economy. In 
addition, it has taken away from the industry's ability to innovate 
and make our future brighter. The problem with the technology 
industry is not Microsoft but AOL, SunMicrosystems and Oracle.
    Their CEOs continuous harping on Microsoft is uncalled for and 
is hurting the industry. It is hurting the industry's innovation and 
reputation. The rhetoric from the above companies is getting old. 
The reason Microsoft is leading the industry in so many was is their 
creativeness and innovation. If the above CEOs would spend more time 
concentrating on their products rather than their perceived enemies 
they would be better off. So would the consumers!!
    Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement. I hope the judge approves the settlement.
    Michael A. Unger



MTC-00014130

From: Charles R. Biggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding Microsoft and the proposed settlement;
    Microsoft is a monopoly. The District Court found that Microsoft 
is a monopoly and the Appeals Court agreed. Microsoft is still 
acting as a monopoly. As an example I offer my purchase of Turbo 
Tax, which is a program for completing the 1040 tax forms and 
calculating the amount of tax due. I purchased this program in 
September 2001 and it was delivered in December. When I loaded the 
program I was forced to load Microsoft Windows Internet Explorer 
version 5.5. I had no choice I had to accept this program with the 
Turbo Tax program. I was given a choice whether or not I wanted to 
load the latest AOL program. This practice is called ?bundling?. It 
was my understanding that Microsoft had been ordered and had agreed 
to stop this sort of activity. But here it is again and this is 
typical of Microsoft's monopolistic attitude.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to stop Microsoft from 
continuing this practice. In fact it will damage the market which 
the Apple Computer Company has developed in the schools. The 12,000, 
used, rebuilt, computers which Microsoft will give to the nations 
schools under the settlement will be loaded with the Microsoft 
operating system plus all of the other Microsoft programs such as 
Internet access, word processing and spreadsheet. The children using 
these computers will become accustomed to the Microsoft system, 
related programs and will in the future be reluctant to switch to 
other systems or programs. The proposed settlement is a sham and it 
is my hope that it will be rejected.
    Any suggestion that the proposed settlement is ?fair and 
reasonable? is a sham I consider this unfortunate. Microsoft has all 
most destroyed Netscape an Internet access company which competes 
with Microsoft's Internet access because it has bundled its access 
program in with its operating system. This was not necessary and 
their statements to the contrary in my opinion were false. There 
were other programs written by other software manufacturers which 
Microsoft overpowered by bundling such as the Lotus word processing 
and spread sheet programs. They, in my opinion, did this by making 
it difficult for someone like me to install these programs and 
building in quirks which made these competing programs difficult to 
operate.
    To repeat Microsoft is and under the proposed settlement will 
continue to be a monopoly and the settlement does nothing to punish 
Microsoft for its past actions and does nothing to keep it from 
acting as a monopoly in the future. This will damage competition for 
the development of new operating systems and innovative programs.
    I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    Charles R. Biggs



MTC-00014131

From: Justin Sevakis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement would reward Microsoft by giving them 
an unfair advantage over Apple by extending market share over the 
educational market. It does nothing in regards to the complaints 
lodged against Microsoft, and simply seems to provide them with an 
outlet for surplus refurbished product and a tax write-off.
    AGAINST Microsoft's proposed settlement.
    Justin Sevakis
    [email protected]



MTC-00014132

From: William Kroll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  3:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    Microsoft is a powerful force. Whatever judgment is dealt, it 
must be swift and severe enough to genuinely affect this monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    William Kroll



MTC-00014133

From: badlunch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  4:35pm
Subject: Microsoft
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to go on record as supporting the 
settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I am relieved to see that both sides could 
come to an agreement and settle the antitrust issue.
    The proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, and the time has 
come to put this matter to rest. Millions of dollars have been 
spent, and valuable time has been wasted in the pursuit of the 
Microsoft Corporation. I feel that the settlement will open-up the 
IT industry, foster competition, and improve the economy. Microsoft 
has agreed not to retaliate against competitors who produce, 
promote, and ship software that competes with Microsoft's. This is a 
giant step in the right direction since companies will not have to 
worry about angering Microsoft.
    I support this settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon 
as possible.
Sincerely,
Mike Stasko
3323 Grovewood Avenue
Parma, Ohio 44134



MTC-00014134

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  4:28pm
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement
    DoJ, To Whom It May Concern:
    The following is the opinion of a concerned citizen, consumer 
and Microsoft shareholder. Thank you for inviting comments during 
the Tunney Act review period regarding the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust matter. The provisions of the agreement have 
been overwhelmingly accepted by the American puplic at large and by 
the consumer in general. It now is time to move on and let the 
matter rest. The

[[Page 25892]]

American consumer deserves to have the matter settlet. To continue 
with this extended legal maneuvering is a disservice to us all. No 
company or its customers and shareholders should be held hostage by 
9 State Attorney Generals. Political ambition or personal feelings 
should not be a reason to disrupt the normal conduct of business. 
Not once during the entire Antitrust proceedings was it proven that 
Microsoft harmed the consumer. However it is apparent to many of us 
thatMicrosoft competitors and the individual States they are located 
in are using the system to circumvent competition in the open 
marketplace. Let Microsoft conduct bussines without outside 
interference.A complete settlement without the threat of continued 
litigation would be a tremendous boost to our economy in this time 
of recession. Let the consumer in an open marketplace determine what 
is best.
    Sincerely,
Klaus Landweer
2113 182nd Ave NE
Redmond, Wash 98052
425-641-8664 or 480-895-3641
Email: [email protected]



MTC-00014135

From: G. Keith Hall
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
G. Keith Hall
11525 E. Meadow St
Moorpark, Ca 93021
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. Keith Hall



MTC-00014136

From: Donna Rott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  3:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donna Rott
1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N
Henry, IL 61537-9438
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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.Donna Ll Rott



MTC-00014137

From: Chuck Tudor
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chuck Tudor
340 Northside Drive
Shelbyville, KY 40065-8960
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Chuck Tudor



MTC-00014138

From: Carl Rott
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Rott
1000 Co. Rd. 1400 N
Henry, IL 61537-9438
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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. & Mrs. Carl Rott



MTC-00014140

From: Ken Hahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for the opportunity to contribute. I have a suggestion 
that would be easy to implement, not involve any break up of 
Microsoft and would eliminate a settlement that is essentially an 
advertising gimmick. Since Microsoft has illegally built and 
maintained a monopoly. And since they have admitted this. And since 
their recent behavior has continued the practices for which they 
were sued. It is obvious Microsoft has hidden behind the law and 
will not participate in any real settlement. I suggest that the tool 
used to establish and maintain the monopoly be denied them. Just 
void the patents used for this purpose. I would believe

[[Page 25893]]

all patents involving the windows operating system are involved.
    Thanks again,
Kenneth G. Hahn
447 W. Madison Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
(714) 528-1362
[email protected]
    P.S. I am a Macintosh user and would not benefit in any way from 
a cheaper Windows OS. I do admit that I have no love for Microsoft 
and feel they have abused their position.



MTC-00014141

From: Matt Lindauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorables,
    It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired 
fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from 
SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft 
significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers 
who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D 
graphics API, OpenGL.
    Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances 
in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive ``Fahrenheit'' 
plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was 
transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling 
workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT.
    At the same time, OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in 
terms of features, hardware support, and developer support. If SGI 
wanted to sell NT boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit 
plan. The perfectly timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of 
OpenGL by, among other things, reducing SGI's active promotion of 
it, and allowed Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.
    Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of 
software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware 
manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D 
technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft 
the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop 
support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation 
in the marketplace.
    Please do not let this come to pass.
    Thank you,
Matt Lindauer
www.mshift2.com



MTC-00014142

From: JERRY FOCHLER
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  5:14pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    The Microsoft case should be settled based on the facts already 
heard. It is for the good of the public and the business community. 
Thank you for your consideration.
    Jerry T. Fochler
    233 Scottwood Ave.
    Elmira Heights, Ny, 14903



MTC-00014143

From: Marv Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I can not stand by a let those who are not inside the software 
``industry'' as I am blather on about how Microsoft did not take any 
steps to suppress and/or eliminate competition.
    OK, I'm a software techo-geek. I've been writing, using, and 
debugging software for 42 years. Most of those years were spent 
writing compilers, compiler building tools, and related utility 
programs like debuggers, linkers, and assemblers. In one of my 
previous jobs, we wanted to port a C compiler to the Windows 
environment. It compiled code that ran twice as fast as that 
compiled by the latest and greatest Microsoft offering. Our problem 
was that we had to take heroic measures to test our compiled code. 
Why? Microsoft will not and will not release the specifications of 
the object code that their system supports - the format that their 
linker accepts and their libraries contain.
    Other compiler teams have faced the same problem. Some with 
deeper pockets than ours reverse engineered the Microsoft object 
code formats. That worked fine until Microsoft ``improved'' the 
formats, requiring another round of reverse engineering. Eventually, 
most gave up--just as Microsoft intended.
    Who loses? Everyone who wants to create efficient programs to 
run in the Windows environment. First hand, that's not many of you, 
but second hand, as users of the programs that are available, that's 
most of you out there. Oh sure, there's the example of Borland, who 
bit the bullet and created their own complete closed system with its 
own unique set of file formats and libraries. One counter example 
with very deep pockets. All of the others eventually have given up 
chasing a sequence of ``new and improved'' Microsoft secret file 
formats. I'm sure that there are those in other niches of the 
software world who can tell similar stories about the Microsoft 
predator. Let's hear them!
    Then there's Windows, or is that Windoze? It is the most bug 
ridden, unstable, sophomoric, ``designed'' by trial and error, half-
baked piece of crap that masquerades as ``operating system'' that 
I've seen in my 42 years in the industry. I could go on and tell you 
what I really think!
    Windoze usually hangs trying to shut itself down. Often, a 
crashing program destroys system information. One that I see a lot 
is that the ESCAPE key's meaning is altered. Guess what the 
``solution'' is. Yep, yet another reboot. This on a machine that has 
hardware to protect the data of one program from all other programs! 
The ``system'' doesn't even protect its own vital data! It stores 
vital resource use information in fixed size 65,536 byte buffers. 
Program crashes often trash even them. Normal use overfills them.
    As far as I'm concerned, UNIX is ``the'' operating system. OS/2 
was great (after its initial teething problems) until Microsoft cut 
IBM off from the details of Windows 95 that they needed to be able 
to run the new generation of Microsoft tools--like Word and Excel. 
Denial of information necessary to competitors. Does that sound 
familiar?
    I say, break up Microsoft, and make the various parts tell the 
others and all aspiring competitors the details of the file formats 
and API's. How many pieces? At least three: Windows, Applications, 
and Development Tools.



MTC-00014144

From: Steve Lee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  5:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    With regard to the Microsoft Antitrust settlement, I feel that 
an equitable solution would be to set up a trust fund managed by a 
third party. This fund ought to distribute grants to schools for the 
purchase of computing hardware. Such a settlement would allow 
educators to determine what resources are most needed on a per-case 
basis.
    -Steve Lee



MTC-00014145

From: David B. Crawley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Microsoft customer/consumer. This lawsuit is not about 
protecting consumers. It is a vicious attempt by jealous competitors 
to destroy a fantastic company that has innovated incredible 
computer products that have changed our lives at very reasonable 
prices. A common operating system is crucial for software 
development and communications between computers. Microsoft had 
provide us with this system. It infuriates me that my tax dollar is 
being used to prosecute this fine American company.
David B. Crawley
12712 471st Ave. SE
North Bend, WA 98045



MTC-00014146

From: Dan Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am one of many U.S. citizens deeply disappointed by the 
proposed settlement between DoJ and Microsoft. As a computer 
professional for more than 15 years, I have used Microsoft products 
extensively and watched closely their behavior and actions. Based on 
both my own observations as well as the findings of this case, it is 
very clear that Microsoft is not only a monopoly but that is has 
consistently and repeatedly abused its monopoly position. 
Furthermore, when it has been called to task for illegal or 
inappropriate practices in the past, it has failed to end its basic 
unfair trade practices but has instead simply found new ways to 
continue its desire and intent to maintain firm control over the 
desktop computer industry. This control has consistently stifled 
innovation and competition, directly harming computing practices in 
this country as well as around the world.
    I believe that the proposed settlement will contribute directly 
to a stagnation of computing growth and innovation that has been 
very evident in the industry for the last 3 to 5 years.

[[Page 25894]]

    The best remedy would be to 1) fully split the company into two 
separate operations, one covering operating systems and one covering 
applications and development tools; and 2) release the full source 
code for the Windows 2000 and Windows XP operating systems to the 
public domain thereby allowing others to demonstrate what innovation 
and improvements are possible via freely shared ideas and knowledge.
> Daniel Evans
9607 165th St Ct E
253.841.0819



MTC-00014147

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit
Antritrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC
    The proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case 
specifically addresses every key finding of the Appeals Court. As a 
citizen of Washington state, I am especially interested in having 
this settlement approved. Competitors of Microsoft who cannot 
compete with this highly successful company on a level playing field 
continue to try to cause its death by litigation. Failure to approve 
the proposed settlement would hurt not only Washington's economy but 
that of the nation. Microsoft's ability should be praised for its 
beneficial effect on consumers.
Florence A. Vande Bogart, Esq.
8904 NE 32nd Ave.
Vancouver, WA 98665



MTC-00014148

From: Sujit Itty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Honorable Judge,
    As an immigrant from India, I am well aware of the effects of 
one business taking over an entire section of the market. While 
India is technically a free market economy, there is so much 
corruption, that many sections of the market have been monopolized. 
Often, it leads to one small group of men who become very wealthy, 
while the rest of the population cannot even afford the products. 
While they may claim to keep prices low, they will find loopholes 
and ways to inch prices up if they are allowed to remain a monopoly. 
I came to the United States to avoid this type of business practice. 
I hoped to come to a place where small businesses would not be 
crushed by an overbearing one. Please keep this from happening.
    Sincerely,
Sujit Itty
615 W. 36th Street #355
Los Angeles, CA 90089
CC: [email protected]. gov@inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo. . . 



MTC-00014149

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Instead of letting Microsoft give a large amount of PC's to poor 
schools, force them to give competing computer brands to schools. 
That is the exact opposite of everything that Microsoft has strived 
for!! Instead of 10 Billion Dollars worth of PC's, give 10 Billion 
dollars of MACS. That way Microsoft won't be able to make a profit 
out of this punishment. Giving 10 Billion dollars worth of PC's will 
only influence schools to purchase PC's in the future, thereby 
turning this punishment into a profit.
    Force Microsoft to use Netscape.com as it's home address, that 
way Netscape will at least have a fighting chance against 
Microsoft's free web browser. Also, force Microsoft to ship 
alternative operating systems on new PCs. The new MAC OS X, may have 
the capability to run on an Intel chip in the future, though it 
hasn't been announced yet.



MTC-00014150

From: Stephanie Jackson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
12114 Bammel N. Houston Road
Houston, TX 77066
January 20, 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 Microsoft 
antitrust case. I was hoping Microsoft would not have to give in to 
the settlement, but understand that sometimes it becomes too costly 
to continue fighting. The settlement already approved by nine states 
in more that fair. I certainly believe that those who wish for 
Microsoft to be disbanded are only jealous that they did not come up 
with a better product. In my view, Microsoft is a ``producer'', and 
I applaud the success of this company. If there are companies that 
can produce something better than Microsoft, they should do it and 
let the consumers dictate which is the better product.
    I see nothing more to be accomplished by further federal action. 
Are the states that want to continue litigation more concerned with 
investment return rather than consumer protection? I believe the 
settlement has accomplished what is fair to the majority. Let us put 
an end to this, once and for all.
    In closing, I am very proud of the way you and the Bush 
administration are handling the country's business. Thank you for 
your service. God bless you.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Jackson
CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014151

From: Peter Cornejo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/18/02  4:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00014151-0001

Aurora & Peter Cornejo
74 Dana Road
Buffalo, New York 14216
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft antitrust case has been active for over three 
years. At last, there is a fair and equitable proposed settlement 
released by the Dept. of Justice. I highly recommend endorsement of 
this settlement.
    The Microsoft Company has agreed to every provision of this 
proposed settlement that resulted from negotiations with a court-
appointed mediator. Microsoft's competitors should be pleased with 
the basic provisions that will allow them access to Microsoft 
Windows protocol, programs, and documentation thereby enabling them 
to link their non-Microsoft software to Windows. Further prolonging 
of this case should be avoided so that the IT industry can once 
again fully focus on innovation without the burden of litigation.
    I look forward to a fair and equitable settlement in the near 
future. Thanks you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Cornejo



MTC-00014152

From: Jon Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is a fair and equitable 
solution particularly for those states that are holding out. From my 
perspective it would appear that the remaing nine states are using 
the Federal Government to tilt what was already level playing field. 
Its time to stop using our tax dollars to eliminate competition for 
those companies that haven't been able to cut it in the marketplace. 
Microsoft has done a great job in product development and support. I 
recently received top notch technical support from Microsoft for an 
extinct operating system. I Also use Corel's Wordperfect, and they 
won't even talk to me because it isn't the latest version.
    The proposal should be approved for all states.
Jon K. Hill
Square One Books
Seattle



MTC-00014153

From: sarah white
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I am a college student. I don't know all of the facts on PFJ, or 
on the history of Microsoft, however I have studied antitrust laws 
and I do see the positive effects of competition every day. 
Microsoft may have earned its way to the top of its competition, 
however, if it is given an effective monopoly, it will cause the 
same types of problems that caused the antitrust laws to be passed 
in the first place. I believe the antitrust laws are there for good 
reason, and should be heeded.
Thank You,
Sarah White, 213-764-6372
Los Angeles, CA
CC: [email protected] @inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo. . . 

[[Page 25895]]



MTC-00014154

From: Mark Hasenjager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    United States Department of Justice,
    I strongly encourage you to ratify the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is time that we move past this 
issue. It is clearly in the best interest of the consumers and 
businesses in the United States.
    Thank you,
    Mark Hasenjager
    Microsoft Corporation



MTC-00014155

From: Christian Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe that Steve Jobs stated it best:
    Excerpt from CNet news: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-
276267.html?legacy=cnet quote>
    But Apple, which has a big stake in the education market, 
criticized the settlement as anticompetitive. On Monday, the 
Cupertino, Calif.-based company filed a 30-page brief opposing the 
proposed agreement. ``Around half of the computers in education 
today are Apple computers, and we're the second largest supplier 
overall and the largest supplier of portable computers to 
education,'' Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement released 
Tuesday.
    ``Given this, we're baffled that a settlement imposed against 
Microsoft for breaking the law should allow--even encourage--them to 
unfairly make inroads into education, one of the few markets left 
where they don't have monopoly power.'' /quote> Microsoft needs to 
be tamed. Right now, they have no fear of the U.S. Government. They 
have no fear because they have control over you. What do most if not 
all of your computer run? Microsoft products. How did they get 
there? Not by being better, but by bullying. Microsoft is VHS tapes 
and Apple (et al) is Betamax.
    See the works of the Lord, and his wonders of the deep.



MTC-00014156

From: J. Edward Maddox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settllement
4829 Crittenden Drive
Ashland, KY 41101
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Thankfully, the government got smart towards the end of 
litigation and decided not to break up the best asset our country 
has in the technology industry. I think that the recent antitrust 
case settlement is extremely harsh, and it reflects the intense 
lobbying efforts of Microsoft's competitors.
    Originally the case was brought to suit because the consumers'' 
rights might have been violated. Even though I have never felt that 
my rights have been infringed upon, the settlement does nothing to 
make my life any easier. All it does is give competition that had 
less success than Microsoft a chance to compete in a market that 
Microsoft dominated through hard work. Under the terms of 
settlement, Microsoft will be giving competitors information about 
their internal interfaces and protocols. They will also be granting 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows to more easily 
promote non-Microsoft products. While I believe the settlement is 
flawed, I still think it is in the public's and our economy's best 
interests to make the settlement a reality as soon as possible. 
Further litigation would be detrimental to our nation's health. 
Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely yours,
    J. Edward Maddox



MTC-00014157

From: Bill Parkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsost setlement
    Representative- Department of Justice, I would highly recommend 
that all charges and claims against Microsost be dropped. I do not 
believe that Microsoft has comitted any crime. If they are required 
to develope Windows Software that will work with all other programs 
it will cost Microsoft far to much. Let all mfg. that build software 
not compatable with Windows develope their own operating systems. I 
do not see the courts fourcing other co,s to do anything. This case 
has gone on far to long and has only hurt the investors and 
consumers. The courts should not be in that business.
    Thank you,
    William T Parkins



MTC-00014158

From: Ron Rioux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement, I would like to see a 
more severe punishment for blocking competition in the marketplace. 
Even now a consumer cannot buy a computer without being forced to 
accept one of the Microsoft operating systems.
    Thanks,
    Ron Rioux



MTC-00014159

From: MMoss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
From the desk of Mark Moss
10801 Rio Springs Drive, Apt 103
Raleigh, NC 27614
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to express my support for the 
settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice Department last 
year. This settlement is long overdue and it is definitely time to 
move forward. I would say the government negotiated a very tough 
agreement. Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows 
that will 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. 
Therefore, consumers will have the freedom to choose to change their 
configuration at any time they please.
    I believe this agreement will also benefit the economy. It will 
bring more certainty to the computer industry and give Microsoft the 
freedom to design new and improved products.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Moss



MTC-00014160

From: K.M. Lowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 20, 2001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    My name is Khan Lowe; and I've worked in the software industry 
for 5 years. When I was an executive at Lotus Development 
Corporation, I saw how Microsoft leveraged its operating system 
monopoly position to dominate the software applications market. I 
don't agree with the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) that was recently 
announced by the Justice Department.
    The PFJ fails to terminate Microsofts illegal monopoly. In 
addition, this settlement gives Microsoft sole discretion to 
determine that other products or services which dont have anything 
to do with operating a computer are nevertheless part of a Windows 
Operating System product.'' Doesn't this create a new exemption from 
parts of antitrust law for Microsoft?
    Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft is only marginally 
penalized for its anti-competitive 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.
    Most importantly, the PFJ does not attempt to compsensate those 
companies who have been directly affected by Microsoft's 
monopolistic tactics. Any corporation that violates U.S. antitrust 
laws deserves a penatly proportionate to it's crime.
    Regards,
Khan Lowe
1040 Edgebrook Lane
Glencoe, IL 60022
212-604-4434
    Khan Lowe
    [email protected] permanent email address
    [email protected] temporary email address



MTC-00014161

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:21pm
Subject: msft anti trust case
    msft is willing to settle but only if every one agrees on the 
terms lets stop trying to

[[Page 25896]]

prevent the software industry from advancing I bet when the case is 
settled and janet renos mistakes have been buryed our econmy will 
change and get better lasee fair
    stop punish success ask msft to add another half billion for 
teacher support only if states settle at the same time settle i bet 
if japan came up with a better software our courts would not be so 
fast to bunish
    bill oehme



MTC-00014162

From: Buddy Brinkley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:24pm
Subject: ``Mcrosoft settlement''
    I for one feel that a monumental amount of time and money has 
been spent on this case and it appears to me that Microsoft was 
doing quite a job of providing quality products to the consumer at a 
fair price. Since the government has decided to enter the picture, 
there has been nothing but havoc. PLEASE get on with the settlement 
and let Microsoft get back to doing business for the good of 
America.
    Buddy Brinkley
    Cotton, GA



MTC-00014163

From: Scott Kindle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Ligitation
    The time has come to move on. Penalties have been assessed, fair 
or not, so lets put it to sleep. Continuing will cost US Tax Payers 
more money along with adding to the uncertainty of the overall 
market place in general. It also acts as a restraint on Microsoft 
stock of which most investors (US Tax Payers) own, either directly 
or indirectly (via funds). This litigation has cost us more due to 
the uncertainty than any monopolistic endeavor by Microsoft.
    The time has come to put this to rest. . . .
    Donald S. Kindle
    Evans, WA



MTC-00014164

From: mary-johne hickman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:37pm
Subject: microsoft antitrust case
    January 20, 2002
    Please leave Microsoft alone. Out country needs this company 
more now than ever. Enough is enough.
    Pursue means to better our economy instead of trashing the most 
innovative company in the world.
    Mary-Johne Hickman



MTC-00014165

From: Jim Caldwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:57pm
Subject: Settlement
    Where do states Attorneys General get the authority to mettle in 
interstate commerce? Apparently from the past corrupt Reno Justice 
Department under the impeached rapist president, they along with 
several individual Attorneys General seeking political fame and 
fortune, took it upon themselves to successfully shake down the 
tobacco industry.
    Now they are attempting to do the same to Micro Soft. Hopefully 
the current Justice Department will stand up and do what is right. 
It is time to get big government, and states Attorneys General out 
of the board rooms and return business to entrepreneurs and risk 
takers; not handcuff them.
    I want to buy what I want. Not being a computer nut, I like 
thins simple and easy to understand and use.
    James E. Caldwell



MTC-00014166

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I read the settlement and I've also talked to all my friends, If 
this goes down there won't be anyone who thinks the government 
wasn't bought off. It's wrong on every level, and just the tip of 
the iceberg on things Microsoft has gotten away with. The fine isn't 
big enough and the was it's to be used will INCREASE their monopoly, 
and if you think it's not a monopoly, read your history books, and 
eight grader can tell you different!



MTC-00014167

From: David and Tina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear ladies and Gentlemen,
    It's time to stop wasting taxpayer dollars going after Microsoft 
Corporation. The provisions of the proposed settlement agreement are 
tough, reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the 
findings of Court of Appeals ruling.
    Let's get the case settled and spend my tax dollars on better 
causes.
    Thanks and regards,
    David Messner
    Registered voter in the state of WA



MTC-00014168

From: Fernando Aguilera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    The new threat posed by Microsoft today is greater than it has 
ever been. In the past, companies, products, and dreams were 
shattered by their monopolistic practices. However, with their new 
suite of development products and their .Net vision, Microsoft is 
poised at taking over the Internet. How? By selling their Windows XP 
software, they have introduced users to their passport technology 
which is used to store user's sensitive data. This in turn produces 
a demand for their .Net web services which companies will be hard-
pressed to ignore. Unfortunately, these .Net web services will only 
run on Microsoft XP servers, which will in turn increase demand for 
Windows XP, as well as other products such as databases, server 
administration tools, and a host of other Microsoft utilities. The 
next step in the process is to de-commoditize the Internet protocols 
as revealed in the infamous ``Halloween Documents'' internal memo. 
As more users and companies jump on the bandwagon, Microsoft will 
release ``improvements'' to these standard protocols. These 
improvements will be nothing more than annoying syntax 
incompatibilities deliberately introduced into the protocols so only 
Microsoft systems can communicate with each other over the Internet, 
thus forcing even more consumers onto their bandwagon. Since no new 
companies will exist to offer any resistance or competition because 
venture capitalists will cower from anyone offering a competing 
product, users will be left with no choice. At this stage, users 
will either join the bandwagon, or be totally left out. Once we 
reach this point, its all lost. Microsoft will in effect OWN the 
once mighty Internet, and start charging small transaction 
processing fees (taxes) on every business transaction taking place. 
Likewise, they will be able to dictate what content is suitable for 
publication on their ``private network'' and will have the power to 
starve all non-compliant web publishers simply by not directing any 
traffic to their site.
    It is inconceivable that the once might ARPANET military 
network, which in turn became the Internet we all enjoy world-wide, 
would one day be subjugated by a single company for their gain and 
everyone else's loss. Yet this is the exact thing that is happening 
today. Our digital medium of global communications is being robbed 
by a single corporation. Allowing this to happen, would be the 
single biggest blunder in our country's anti-trust history, one from 
which we may never recover.
    Sincerely,
    Fernando X. Aguilera
    Senior Programmer Analyst



MTC-00014169

From: Timothy Bailey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:35pm
Subject: Public Comment on Microsoft ruling
    In deciding a penalty for Microsoft, I feel that it must be 
something that actually causes a penalty, not like the settlement 
reached last fall. I am a computer professional with a BS in 
Computer Science and Engineering. I have worked in the industry for 
almost eight years, and was a follower or it for many years 
beforehand. I have used many versions of Windows in that time, so I 
am quite familiar with the product and how Microsoft does business.
    I feel that since Microsoft was found to be an illegal monopoly, 
it should be treated in a manner that will weaken its ability to 
maintain (and/or regain) said monopoly. Unlike the actions against 
Standard Oil and AT&T, I feel that it would be too problematic to 
split Microsoft into two (or more) portions.
    However, an appropriate penalty, in my view, must:
    * Disallow contractual obligations with computer manufacturers 
that require a payment be made to Microsoft for every computer sold, 
no matter whether a Microsoft product is installed on that computer. 
For example, if IBM sells a computer with Linux installed as its 
operating system, no payment need be made to Microsoft.
    * Allow computer manufacturers to customize the appearance of 
the Windows operating system; for example, they may

[[Page 25897]]

remove the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop on the computers 
that they sell.
    * Consider Internet Explorer and similar add-ons to Windows as 
add-ons and not integral parts of it; if a computer manufacturer 
wishes to sell computers without such add-ons, they should be 
allowed to do so. Additionally, the manufacturers should be allowed 
to include whatever other software they choose (for example, the 
Netscape Internet browser).
    * Force an appropriate charge for Microsoft products, rather 
than having them thrown in free or at a reduced cost. Also, those 
products must be available without the computer for that price 
differential. For example, if a computer without an operating system 
costs $100, with Windows costs $110, and with Windows and Word costs 
$115, then that computer seller must make Windows by itself 
available for $10, and Word for $5. (These prices, of course, are 
theoretical.)
    * Force Microsoft to fully and publicly document all of the APIs 
for Windows; the ``hidden'' APIs have allowed other Microsoft 
products (Word, Excel, etc.) to have an unfair speed and 
functionality advantage.
    * Force Microsoft to fully and publicly document all of its file 
formats, so that other companies can publish software that can read 
and write them as well. (For example, so that another company can 
create their own word processor that can read and write Word-format 
documents without any intermediate translator programs required.
    * Make certain that all networking protocols in Microsoft 
products are fully documented and approved by an independent network 
protocol body before being released in a product. Preferentially, 
they should use public protocols instead.
    * Keep Microsoft from announcing products months before release, 
in a tactic to drive other companies out of business. (Microsoft 
has, in the past, announced products with apparently the sole 
purpose of keeping consumers from buying a competing product--then, 
the Microsoft product either was quite late, or never materialized 
in the market.)
    * Force Microsoft to pay much more attention to security 
concerns; Internet Explorer, and Outlook (for example) should ship 
with the most restrictive security settings be default, and indeed, 
should have a much better ability to defeat viruses and worms than 
they do.
    Timothy Bailey
    243 West Oak Street
    Grafton, WI 53223
    [email protected]



MTC-00014170

From: Ed (038) Lesa Seibold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
828 NE Emily Lane
Lees Summit, MO 64086
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to praise you and the rest of the Justice 
Department for reaching a settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
litigation. I hope you move forward and resolve the case as soon as 
possible.
    I certainly don't know every aspect of the settlement, and I 
most certainly have no detailed allegations of the antitrust laws 
Microsoft is alleged to have violated. It appears that Microsoft 
will open its Windows systems to more competition, both internally 
and externally, from non-Microsoft software designers and 
manufacturers, and that answers the complaint I most frequently 
heard. I think it is time for everyone to stop wasting time in Court 
and money on lawyers and get back to work.
    A compromise by its very nature means that the parties don't get 
everything they want. Please ignore the whiners and the carpers and 
close this matter immediately.
    Thank you for the opportunity to address this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Seibold



MTC-00014171

From: Sandy Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:41pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am an engineer who uses personal computers at work and at 
home. I am continually frustrated by the rotten operating systems 
and application software put out by Microsoft. They are a monopoly 
and have no reason whatsoever to make good software at reasonable 
prices. There is simply no competition in operating systems for 
personal computers.
    As part of the settlement, Microsoft should be forced to release 
all information about their application programming interface (API) 
all at once and in full. That way, competitors could write both 
operating systems and application software to compete with 
Microsoft.
    Competition is finally working in the personal computer hardware 
market, where Intel and AMD are fiercely battling to put out more 
and more powerful computer chips, at lower and lower prices. This is 
competition truly at work.
    The same thing should be done for operating systems. Please see 
the article posted on Salon magazine for more details: http://
www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/index.html.
    Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Sandy F.C. Stewart, PhD
Research Biomedical Engineer
Rockville MD, USA



MTC-00014172

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  9:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This nation would not be great without corporations like 
Microsoft developing innovative technology tools and at the same 
time revolutionizing capitolism. For the sake of the industry and 
the economy, let's stop wasting the taxpayers money, tune out the 
whining of the MS competitors and get on with the business of 
business.
    Kate McCoy
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014173

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:08pm
Subject: What are the issues remaining for the States that protest 
the Settlement?
    Its important for the consuming public to understand what the 
issues are that stand in the way of a final settlement. Otherwise it 
comes down to the personalities of the larger than life egoes of the 
principle players.



MTC-00014174

From: Bob Oakley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft is a monopoly is should be broken-up!
Bob Oakley
Marketing OutSourcing
PO Box 1073
Groveland CA 95321
email: [email protected]
Tel: 209-962-4899
FAx: 209-962-4899



MTC-00014175

From: Murrie Bonnie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    MEMO
    TO: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    FROM: BONNIE MURRIE
    RE: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    I AM STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT. I 
CONSIDER THE LEGAL EXPENSES TO DATE A COMPLETE WASTE OF MONEY AND 
WISH THE GOVERNMENT HAD SOUGHT A MORE CREATIVE SETTLEMENT LONG AGO. 
LIKE USING MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY AND KNOW HOW TO UPDATE GOVERNMENT 
COMPUTING SYSTEMS AT NO COST TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. ALL IN ALL I 
FIND THE ANTI-TRUST RULINGS TO BE ALL OVER THE PLACE. CONSIDERING 
AIRLINE, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PHARMACEUTICAL MERGERS THAT HAVE BEEN 
BLESSED DURING THE COURSE OF THE MICROSOFT LITIGATION. IT'S TIME TO 
MOVE ON.
Murrie Bonnie
[email protected]



MTC-00014176

From: Steven Vandenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree wholeheartedly with the decision for PC makers to make 
and sell dual-boot systems. People need to see that Microsoft is not 
the only game in town. There are other, stronger, better, even cost-
free alternatives in operating systems. I particularly appreciate 
and am all for the idea of an appointed Technical Committee to 
oversee ALL activites of Microsoft, providing room for competition. 
For we all know that the Big Bad Microsoft Regime [particularly 
William H. Gates, III] seemingly cannot stand competition. Just as 
MS plans to watch over

[[Page 25898]]

every transaction on their .NET, the Technical Committee should 
watch over them--LIKE A HAWK!
    MS should learn to live with competition, whether they are 
start-ups or full-fledged for-profit companies, not steal from and 
squeeze everybody else out of business.
    Steven Vandenberg
    NSF any1 but myself and the cheated public



MTC-00014177

From: Matthew Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:32pm
Subject: My reasons for opposition to the Settlement.
    Good Evening,
    Before I begin with the list, here is a little background of me 
with microsoft products. I've been using Microsoft products as far 
as I can remember, I'm currently 20 yrs old going on 21. I started 
my time with Microsoft Dos 5. I've used Windows 2, 286, 3, 3.1, 3.11 
WFW, NT 4, 2000, and now Windows XP. I use Windows on a consistant 
basis, I do development, testing, gaming, and internet with it. I 
also use other operating systems not that of Microsoft's, such as 
Linux, Unix, and MacOS. Here is my list of complaints with their 
software (Explaination why this is here will be added at the end):
    (1) Windows under a fresh install with no other applications/
software installed is the only stablity a user can get(not counting 
with internet ablities counted).
    (2) Most of the current/future internet attacks are designed for 
Windows.
    (3) Majority of viruses still being passed around on the 
internet and in infected programs are designed for MS-DOS/Windows. 
Where as MacOS has no recent viruses that I'm aware of or that has 
been popular in the news. There has only been one recent virus for 
Unix/Linux and it was a cross platform virus that could infect 
Windows and Unix/Linux.
    (4) Poor response to problems. When Microsoft detects a problem 
or security issue with their products it sometimes takes a month or 
two to get a update or patch for it. With other operating systems/
commerical software sometimes when a problem is reported and is 
serious it gets fixed in less then a month.
    (5) Everytime they release a new product, it seems they have 
security issues, bugs, or other vulnerablities. Most other software 
usually under goes rigorous testing to remove 80% of their security 
issues, bugs, or vulnerablities. These other software companies end 
up having vulnerablities found about five or so months after the 
software is released and usually is fixed and a patch is available.
    (6) Microsoft opposition to opensource community. While 
understandable they are out to make a profit, but embracing the 
opensource community would make their software more popular and 
offer more avenues for profit.
    (7) Inadequet support for the various software and hardware out 
there. Often leading into some device drivers causing problems with 
the others.
    (8) Inadequet support for their own software on their Operating 
Systems. An example of this would be on some microsoft games 
installing them on Windows 2000/XP will sometimes fails due to a 
phantom error.
    (9) Software is over priced for its value. Some may argue that 
peoples work allows them to define their value, but the value should 
be the value of what can be done with it. You can do most of the 
same things with Windows 98 as you can with Windows XP, the only 
difference is the core technology backing Windows XP.
    (10) New Versions of the software released on a consistent 
basis. Most of the time just a User Interface change that makes it 
look different but the way it works still the same. The difference 
between Office 2000 and XP is the license registration, and the User 
Interface changed. The fact is while this isnt really that bad, 
having to force previous version users to pay for an upgrade every 
year or two ends up costing that particular using anywhere from 
$2400--$3200 considering if the standard pricing for Microsoft 
Office 2000 and/or XP is 400 for standard and 800 for Premium.
    (11) Part of contracts between Microsoft and Computer Vendors is 
that if they want to distribute Microsoft products with their 
machines, they can not sell computers with non-product alternatives. 
You wont see Dell, for example, distribute a machine with Linux 
installed on it or offer the option of having Linux installed on a 
machine a person buys.
    These are some I can think off the top of my head (especially at 
10pm). The point of listing this information and complaints is, in 
competition you have a company trying to improve the quality and 
performance of their software, while adding features to the software 
to make it more unique and attractive to end users. Lower prices 
then the competition is also a trick. Microsoft has been using a 
facist appearance. I say this as they give us something to use, we 
use it, and eventually are stuck with it that we have to listen to 
them as some dictator saying that we need to do what they say. 
Currently there is no other Office Suite out there that can read 
and/or write Word documents, and thus if we want to give a person a 
document in Word 2000 format that person has to have Word 2000 or 
better to read it. So we get forced into having to use their 
software one way or another. This is like being under nazism, where 
the enemy, according to microsoft, is the open source community, and 
they try to eridicate the open source movement.
    The reason microsoft wants to settle is because right now 
Microsoft is one company with one person at the helm, if the company 
was to be broken into several companies then that one man who is 
incharge would only be in charge of one company really, their profit 
will be divided, and overall in their eyes its the end of the world.
    I feel that if the world was to progress into an age where 
computer technology and software were to heavily advance it would 
require not to settle as it would then push microsoft to derive 
better quality products and overall better quality on the internet.
    Sincercely,
    Matthew Black



MTC-00014178

From: Gary Kincaid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    It is my belief that MicroSoft has provided tremendous products 
that have helped revolutionize the way we conduct our business and 
our lives in this ever changing world. I also believe that the 
settlement agreed to is a fair one and that MicroSoft should not be 
further penalized for their business practices. No company should be 
put in jeopardy for having the American spirit and drive to develop 
products that change the way we conduct our business and our lives. 
Instead, they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their hard 
work and efforts and not have to apologize to their competitors for 
their success. Their competitors have had the same opportunity to 
develop revolutionary products to gain a competitive edge, and 
apparently have not taken advantage of the opportunity.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Kincaid



MTC-00014179

From: Pat Goyen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  7:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pat Goyen
1272 South Emigrant Place
Casper, WY 82604
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial wasted taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance to 
consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. I feel that it is time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft (and I wholeheartedly agreed). 
If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft can get back 
into the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Goyen



MTC-00014180

From: Debbie Henderson
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 25899]]

Date: 1/20/02  11:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please honor the comprehensive agreement (via the Tunney Act) 
that the federal government and nine states reached with Microsoft. 
I do not believe further litigation would gain anything for either 
side. Thank you for honoring my request.
    Debbie Henderson
    Saltillo, Mississippi



MTC-00014181

From: Rudy Rodriguez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I know that this is only one person's opinion but I think that 
Microsoft should not be allowed to remain a monopoly because it 
limits technology. If Microsoft had real competitors they would 
strive to outdo the other company and that only results in better 
technology for us, the consumers. Plus I do believe in a free market 
economy that has been the US's motto since its birth, I think its 
called laisse-faire.
    Well, thank you judge for listening.
Rudy Rodriguez
2 El Vecino Place
Phillips Ranch, CA 91766
(909) 623-1591



MTC-00014182

From: Thomas Morrisey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department Representative,
    While I have no formal legal training, it seems mindboggling to 
me that the government would allow Microsoft, which has been accused 
of using its monopoly powers to crush innovation in an industry that 
affects so many of our lives, to get off the hook by giving away 
Windows-compatible computers and thereby expanding its monopoly. 
Microsoft1s lies and illegal business practices have given it 
control of over 95% of the world1s desktop computers, which is a 
shame when one sees the quality of their operating system, Windows. 
While Microsoft has made some innovative products, (for example, I1m 
using Microsoft Entourage to type this email) I believe it has been 
a case of one step forward, two steps back. Microsoft1s crimes 
against the American people and many of its businesses should be 
severely punished.
    Thank you for your time and concern,
    Thomas J. Morrisey



MTC-00014183

From: Paul Simons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  11:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment. I believe 
that Microsoft has had to both accomodate and compete with other 
vendors of office, graphics, internet, and operating system 
software. The sheer reality of this medium is the result of 
standards coming into wide acceptance and useability. Just as 117 
volt alternating current won out as the standard for electricity, 
Windows has won out as the standard operating system. However it is 
not a monopoly- I could be writing this document with any number of 
word processing programs from various vendors, on any of several 
available operating systems. The Department of Justice could be 
reading it using one of many internet communication or email 
packages. If you are using Windows, it is probably because it is 
readily available and works. If you are using Linux or Apple 
systems, that indicates there is no monopoly.
    It also bears pointing out that Microsoft sells program-writing 
tools that anyone can use to create software to sell in competition 
with Microsoft products.
    Thanks for reading this, Paul Simons Levittown PA USA or another 
victim.
    In the news recently, Microsoft has bought much of Silicon 
Graphics'' Patent Portfolio, specifically the patents for OpenGL, 
which is in direct competition with Microsoft's own DirectX. By 
buying the patents of the dying competition (SGI also has no air 
supply), Microsoft can LEGALLY kill the 3D and gaming capabilities 
of ALL non-Microsoft Operating Systems. Apple will die. They based 
their new operating system on heavily on OpenGL Linux will die. Like 
Apple, they don't have access to Microsoft's DirectX (obviously), 
and rely heavily on OpenGL to give their system functionality. Who 
will buy a computer if their kids can't play games on it, especially 
when Microsoft owns the Office genre and won't allow anyone else to 
communicate with their product? There's nothing else left. Microsoft 
owns it all. They have their fingers in with hardware producers now, 
who will have to exclude other operating systems from their designs 
in order to appease Microsoft. This isn't relevant to your case, but 
it is an example of the complete lack of respect Microsoft has for 
your verdict. They aren't worried in the least. And their business 
plans continue unaffected and unharmed. They will buy everything 
that is competition and bury it specifically to harm others. http://
www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/23708.html
    I hope that you will consider my points as you decide what to do 
to bring equity to the PC market.
    I'm sorry for being so wordy (and waxing poetic (badly) in a few 
places), but as a guy who works on computers 12-15 hours a day, 
Microsoft has honestly lowered my quality of life, and I'd hate to 
see them get out of yet another trial unscathed. Which, 
unfortunately, is what looks like is happening. Bill Gates admitted 
it when he said ``We haven't changed our business practices at 
all.''
    Think about it. This may be the last Microsoft case that will 
ever matter.
    Best Regards,
    Matthew Squires



MTC-00014184

From: Brian m.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    We all know what microsoft is doing is fraudulent, however, 
nobody seems to have the resources or the legal power to contain 
this problem. I think it is rather sad that corporations can get 
away with monopolizing an entire industry, simply because they can 
afford to find loopholes, pay off government officials, etc.
    I think the time to act is long overdue. The Department of 
Justice needs to implement a plan that will reduce Microsoft's 
stronghold on the computer industry- especially when there are far 
superior products available.
    It's disgusting how Microsoft tried ``paying off'' their 
settlement by providing underprivileged schools with refurbished 
computers running their own Operating System. Not only is this 
increasing their market share, but it is taking away from other 
viable computer manufacturers like Apple computers- who build a much 
finer Operating system/ Computer.
    It's time to stop this evil money-hungry power machine and let 
others share in the market.
    Increasing competition will only create more jobs, more 
computers, more demand.
    Sincerely,
    Brian McGrath



MTC-00014185

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is a very bad idea. It does 
nothing to end Microsoft's illegal monopoly in spite of the fact 
that every federal court that has looked at the facts has found that 
Microsoft violated U.S. antitrust laws. And it does nothing to 
prevent Microsoft from extending it's current monopoly into new 
areas like it's .NET Internet plans. Furthermore it does not punish 
Microsoft, financially or otherwise, for it's past statuary 
violations and financial gains from it's illegal activities.
    I could go on with more technical details about why this 
settlement is nothing more than a political expediency, but since 
I'm sure you will be getting a lot of mail with specifics about what 
is wrong with it, let me give you a personal experience I recently 
had. I use Linux and I want to buy a new PC without Microsoft 
software on it since I don't want to pay for something I won't be 
using. I tried Dell, Gateway, and Compaq and not one of them would 
sell me a machine without Windows. Mind you, I wasn't asking them to 
sell me one with Linux (although that would be nice), but just 
without Microsoft software. Furthermore I recently had a cable modem 
installed and the installer said he needed Microsoft Windows running 
on my PC to do the installation (even though the cable modem works 
fine with Linux).
    There are those who are happy with only having to deal with one 
operating system because it makes their life easier. And sometimes 
it's best to have a monopoly (e.g., telephones, electricity, etc.), 
but it's NEVER a good idea to have an unregulated monopoly. That 
Microsoft has a monopoly is an undisputed fact. Either breakup the 
Microsoft monopoly or regulate them.
Mel Melchner
14B Kensington Road
Chatham, NJ 07928
CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25900]]



MTC-00014186

From: TA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Morning
    I would like to offer a comment on an aspect of the Microsoft 
Monopoly that I have not seen discussed in detail.
    I am the senior for a large corporate development department. 
What is happening now is that software such as word processors, 
spreadsheets, operating systems have matured and are not gaining a 
lot of new features in the newer releases. A lot of companies and 
people don't upgrade their software on as regular a basis as the 
basic functionality is not changing a lot and the stability of 
today's software is much better than even 5 years ago. i.e. windows 
95 crashed every 4-5 hours whereas windows 2000 can run for months 
or even years without ever crashing. What this means for Microsoft 
is that there revenue streams are going to start softening up as 
this newer and much better software provides much longer life spans. 
Enter a new feature in Microsoft's new software called WPA under the 
pretext of controlling piracy. This system takes a ``picture'' of 
the hardware of the computer that it is installed and then allows 
only a few minor changes to that computer. The problem here is that 
when you buy a piece of Microsoft software it is now locked to one 
computer. What this means when you buy a new computer as your 
hardware becomes obsolete or even if you upgrade your current 
computer your Microsoft software is now locked out and you have to 
buy another full copy in order to regain the functionality you have 
already paid for in your previous computer and want to move over 
(not copy) to your new computer. So as people's computers become 
obsolete or even break and need new parts Microsoft forces them to 
buy new software regardless of whether they need or want it. This 
means that if you need a particular piece of software (and in 
Microsoft's monopoly position it may be a piece of software that 
they have taken over the market on i.e. operating systems) on your 
older computer in which case you have to decide on buying a new 
computer or paying for an expensive operating system that may only 
have 6 month's or a year of use because they have locked it into a 
particular computer.
    For example I have office 2000 on my current computer While I 
intend to upgrade my computer in the next couple of years I have no 
intensions of upgrading my office 2000 as it currently does 
everything I need it to. Under office xp I would HAVE to purchase 
the office upgrade at several hundred dollars just to continue using 
the software I legally purchased to use all my content that is only 
compatible with MS office.
    In an open competitive system I wouldn't have a problem with 
this. I would simply buy someone else's software But in Microsoft's 
monopoly position and the fact they either are the only 
manufacturers of some software or make the only software that will 
run other software WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. We HAVE to buy their 
software and with this new WPA, upgrade at whatever intervals 
Microsoft feels is appropriate to keep their revenue stream up. I 
feel that as part of this settlement Microsoft should be forced to 
abandon this monopolistic and restrictive software practice and 
allow people to be able to remove legally purchased software from 
obsolete computers and install it on a new machine with paying 
hundreds of dollars to Microsoft for no other reason then they want 
to keep their revenue streams up at the consumer's expense.
    Thanks for reading my submission
    Rob A



MTC-00014187

From: Michael King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that a settlement should be reached as soon as 
possible with Microsoft. This is not a scenario fit for cat and 
mouse games. Stop allowing the delays and make some decisions.



MTC-00014188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I favor the settlement. Let's not drag this litigation into the 
courts any longer.
    Robert Childs



MTC-00014189

From: starthru
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:14 am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
9S353 Cumnor Road
Downers Grove, Illinois 60516
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft shareholder and firm supporter, I urge you to 
help stop any further litigation against the recent settlement 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. After three years 
of negotiations, Microsoft has bent over backwards to support the 
actions of our technology industry. I feel strongly that it is time 
to move forward and let our IT companies prosper. By designing new 
versions of Windows that allow easier installation of non-Microsoft 
software, Microsoft will be promoting the use of other software. 
This is extremely helpful to the consumer, the IT sector and our 
economy as a whole.
    I ask you to help stop any action against this agreement. Please 
help us to move forward and get back to business. I support this 
settlement and look forward to a swift end in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Osborne



MTC-00014190

From: PATRICIA MALEN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft
    Over the years I have used multiple computer systems. At this 
point in time and space there is only one operating system 
``Windows''. Any third party programs have been locked out. 
Microsoft has even bought Apple after taking there operating system. 
This is holding the American public hostage.
    After receiving a computer for Christmas with MSN as an internet 
provider the service has been poor to say the least. Calls to MSN 
are a total waste of time they have no clue and tell me to do things 
that are absurd.
    I know that almost every business and home computer are using 
these systems with millions of dollars going to Microsoft every day.
    What do the words ANTITRUST mean? Nothing anymore.



MTC-00014191

From: Keith Ajayan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:26am
Subject: microsoft anti-trust case
    I am hanging on, hoping that my Government can see the forest 
through the trees. Please do not let them monopolize a free industry 
that will surely be tainted for the future if left unchecked. Teddy 
Roosevelt was a leader in trust busting and he would be all over 
them if he saw the case. Think like Teddy and say to yourself ``how 
would he handle it.'' I am trusting you, our patriots, to help us 
make sure that they do not shape the world according to them only.
    Thank you,
Keith Ajayan
Golden, CO
[email protected]



MTC-00014192

From: Bill Bucko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional and as an American who thinks the 
rights to liberty and property should be defended, not attacked, by 
the so-called ?Justice? Department, I am outraged at the 
government's persecution of Microsoft. When the government penalizes 
the successful at the behest of their competitors, it is a threat to 
all our rights.
    Microsoft has never had the power to force anyone to do 
anything. Whoever wants to curtail Microsoft's profits and restrict 
its share of the market has always been free to do so--by simply 
going elsewhere and dealing with someone else. It is government 
alone that has the power to use force. As George Washington said, 
?Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.? 
Microsoft offers a product that is so good that a large majority of 
those in the market want to buy it. Why should the government 
disrupt the free choices made in the marketplace? The only threat to 
the market is the computer-illiterate power-lusters in government, 
like Janet Reno, who rely on the point of a gun.
    If she (and you) had been in power 120 years ago to ?protect? us 
from Thomas Edison and his ?monopoly? on the electric light bulb--
where would we be today?
    Here is the only settlement that is acceptable:

[[Page 25901]]

    (1) APOLOGIZE to Microsoft and to all of America for persecuting 
success and threatening our freedom. (2) REIMBURSE Microsoft for all 
the money it has had to waste in defending itself against the anti-
capitalist looters in our so-called ?Justice? Department. And
    (3) SCRAP the Antitrust Laws, which are inherently unjust and 
non-objective. You cannot FORCE the market to be free--that's a 
contradiction in terms--you can only destroy our freedom.
    Angrily,
Bill Bucko
Computer Helpdesk Analyst
130 South Avenue, Apt. 2
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043



MTC-00014193

From: Rick Lyon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:15am
Subject: Anti-trust case
    To whom it may concern,
    As a hard working tax payer I can not believe in this day an age 
a company as large as Microsoft is allowed to get away with the type 
of actions they are. I use Apple computers and know first hand how 
evil Microsoft is. I remember when they threatened to stop 
production of Microsoft Office is Steve Jobs did not make internet 
Explorer the default web browser upon installation of a new OS. I, 
as a minority since I use Apple, everyday watch the deeds that 
Microsoft is allowed to get away with and wonder how AT & T failed 
where Microsoft is succeeding. Is that Microsoft is donating more 
money to campaigns? Helping more politicians? Lobbying in Washington 
must be an easy thing to do because Microsoft is making it look like 
child1s play. Microsoft Windows is on about 95% of the world1s 
computers. Does that sound like a healthy business with thriving 
competition?
    Please don1t succumb to the pocket filling ways of Microsoft, 
the cries of integration of their browser, or any other of their 
lies an dirty practices. They must be punishes as AT&T were. They 
must face penalties. Bill Gates must be shown he cannot use his 
companies size, influence and power to do whatever he pleases, to 
whomever he pleases.
    I hope you take action that is justly called for. Their 
punishment will not affect the economy. It would actually help it 
giving other companies a chance to vie for a piece of the market.
    As a tax payer, you take from me everyday. Stop Microsoft from 
doing the same to everyone else.
    Thank you,
    Rick



MTC-00014194

From: Joseph Meighan
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  11:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Meighan
307 Columbia ST.
Cohoes, NY 12047-2213
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 Meighan



MTC-00014195

From: Frank Schoen
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  11:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Schoen
5541 La Jolla Mesa Drive
La Jolla, CA 92037-7718
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 C. Schoen



MTC-00014196

From: Joseph Madden
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/20/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Madden
1731 Harold Ave.
Wantagh, NY 11793
January 20, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech 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 P. Madden Jr.



MTC-00014197

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's about time to settle this and spend the taxpayers money on 
more important things.



MTC-00014198

From: Steve Sherwood
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  2:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Sherwood
8034 S. Cicero Ave.
Burbank, IL 60459
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    Microsoft is the reason for the last 10 years of US success. We 
can use this large company and their tools* * * the greatest 
communication tools ever used by human hands. To help educate the 
planet about our real situation. We are over populated and under-
educated a solution is at hand USE IT

[[Page 25902]]

!The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a nuisance 
to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the high-tech 
industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief. Upwards of 
60% of Americans thought the federal government should not have 
broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like 
Microsoft can get back into the business of innovating and creating 
better products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Steven Sherwood



MTC-00014199

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:46am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    I resent the fact that my taxes are going to pay for litigation 
against the most successful business in the USA and one that has 
contributed so much to our way of life. They have done everything 
right and they disserve their success. Consumers are not hurt by 
Microsoft they are helped. You can't put Microsoft on equal ground 
with any other platform manufacturer. They have to earn it.
    I would rather have competive Electric and gas companies. Both 
suppliers and consumers are hurt by no competition. Microsoft 
supplies a unique product. It is actually better to have Apple and 
Microsoft platforms than to have many others. Unification and 
standardization are desirable.
    I am satisfied with the original settlement.
    Craig Mackay
    Randolph, MA



MTC-00014200

From: Geoffrey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am in favor of the courts final judgment findings against 
Microsoft. Microsoft is too large, they stifle competition by buying 
up competitors. It should be broken down so the industry is on a 
more level playing field. This will encourage new technologies and 
be helpful for the economy. Microsoft controls too large a portion 
of the computer software market.
    Thank You
    Geoffrey Loeffler



MTC-0014201

From: Brian Hayes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments regarding United States v Microsoft:
    I've purchased Microsoft products for almost twenty five years. 
In every edition, my overhead has increased in order to keep 
machines stable or secure and to try to install the product and 
performance claims that Microsoft advertised. I do not believe I 
have dealt with a company that exercises fair dealing. I also 
believe that Microsoft attains market by unfairly suppressing, 
absorbing or complicating the operability of competitor products. I 
have abandoned software and hardware produced by Microsoft's 
competitors in order to maintain machine stability and manage 
arbitrary changes in software interface. As well, Microsoft has 
developed a means of describing and documenting its products that is 
an arbitrary artificial language, often confusing, irrelevant and 
misleading. I have been forced to carry the burden of carrying two 
languages, one as developed by Microsoft, very often unuseable, and 
another used by the developer, technician and user in the field. 
Beyond the simple interface terms, of which Microsoft can claim 
little ownership, very seldom are Microsoft's technical descriptions 
adopted by users or systems workers. Microsoft not only produces 
systems, but unfairly commandeers the mechanism and language to 
interact with these systems, and charges significant fees to become 
privy to their new copyright claims as well. Microsoft's practice in 
the sectors of certification and education have become an 
unnecessary financial and social drain on the public, and 
furthermore, tend to steer learning away from machine and software 
knowledge and thus merely toward an increasingly ineffectual but 
proprietary Microsoft language product.
    I believe that the core of Microsoft's software and its 
technical descriptions of its software should be relinquished to the 
public, where much of Microsoft's original claims were developed, 
funded and improved.
    I believe our representatives and agents have been very slow to 
require commercial market participants to adhere to their claims and 
contracts, to deliver to their customers the value that they assert, 
and to recognize that carrying on in our marketplace is both a duty 
and privilege.
    I believe that Microsoft's tenure has demonstrated an inability 
of our society to encourage and demand good corporate citizenship.
    I hope that a vigorous leadership and staff will continue to 
move Microsoft toward fair dealing.
    Best Regards,
Brian Hayes
5308 T St
Sacramento, CA 95819



MTC-00014202

From: Ben Olmsted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:07am
Subject: Microsoft will never change. Case in point: 3d 
acceleration.
    It has recently come to light that Microsoft has purchased 
various 3D acceleration technologies from SGI.
    Prior to this purchase there were two companies vying for 
position in the 3D acceleration market, Microsoft with Direct X and 
SGI with OpenGL. Microsoft buys OpenGL technology from SGI and guess 
what? Monopoly.
    Benton R. Olmsted
    [email protected]



MTC-00014203

From: kmessick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:25am
Subject: The DOJ should have broke up Microsoft.
    Dear DOJ,
    The DOJ should have broken up Microsoft instead of making any 
deal.
    Microsoft controls (with a iron fist) over 90% of the market of 
OS for computers.
    Microsoft has copied every OS its every made (but DOS) from 
Apple. The only thing different from Mac OS X and Windows XP is the 
P! Microsoft has many times try to kill java if fact it's not even 
in its new OS XP. It almost killed Netscape well basically did 
because AOL who own's Netscape cant even use its own browser they 
use Microsoft's browser. Microsoft is a Trust, Monopoly and down 
right a bully.
    I sorry to say this but Microsoft has broken deals with the DOJ 
before and you all have been fools to trust them. Bill Gates 
(Microsoft) is Laughing at the DOJ with his 50 billion dollars 
thinking his more powerful than the United States Department of 
Justice, because he and Microsoft has gotten away with being a 
Monopoly that rules with a iron fist. And all it got was a slap no* 
* * a little tap on the hand.
    Come on now what where you all thinking making a deal with the 
devil like that?
    Break'um up
    David Messick



MTC-00014204

From: Dave Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:28am
    Lets get on with the issues that are really important to the 
consumer. The special interest groups that have personal agendas to 
gain from have been heard it is now time to let them know a few can 
not harm the many people who enjoy what Microsoft has done for the 
general public.



MTC-00014205

From: Ronald E Hostetler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:50am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement in MicroSoft vs. Government
    I have a number of comments:
    1. The major problem with this case appears to be the apparent 
lack of knowledge of government prosecutors and judges and the lack 
of adequate legislation creating standards for the computer 
industry.
    2. If you want to land possibly the fatal blow to Apple 
Computer, the proposed settle may do it, convert more schools over 
to the PC Windows environment. Apple Computers are still the leading 
machines for Graphic

[[Page 25903]]

Design Applications and schools. The proposed settlement eats away 
at an Apple Computer market.
    2. A great deal of legislation is need for the regulating 
businesses in our capitalistic system and protect employee assets 
and jobs.
    3. The ``rubber stamping'' of mergers within the USA and 
purchase of USA firms by foreign companies to gain full access to 
our markets is putting thousands of people out of work and capping 
retirement values.
    4. Legislature is needed before settling the Microsoft case. 
Loading Microsoft software products search out and make inoperative 
competitors software especially web browsers. These practices need 
to be stopped. The consumer should have the choice.
    5. Microsoft, I'm told, is planning further monopolistic 
practices. The windows operating systems in the future, will require 
pass word changes every year that you will rely on Microsoft to 
provide. You won't buy the software, but will pay a rental fee; then 
yearly lease payments and up-date down loads from the internet.
Ronald E. Hostetler
972 Eagle Dr.
Rock Hill, SC 29732



MTC-00014206

From: Jon Ogden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the Federal Settlement that has been reached 
by the non glory hounds. The 8 objecting state attorneys-general 
show an amazing lack of understanding of the issues involved. It 
would seem that they are representing AOL, Sun and Oracle, not their 
constituents.
    Jon Ogden



MTC-00014207

From: Joe Hill, Sr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:17am
Subject: Settlement of Microsoft
    To Whom Ever Concerned:
    In my opinion, Microsoft should not be broken up into smaller 
companies. From where I sit, Bill Gates and Company knows what they 
are doing to keep the computer industry at the ``top''. Why should 
they have to break up just so some other folks can catch up with 
their technology. Let the others do their own home work and 
inventions. In this world of trade, trading partners and the like, 
companies have to be on their toes or else be overtaken by 
competitors from other parts of the world. We as Americans don't 
want that.
Joseph Hill
4011 Ditty Road
Cookeville, TN 38506-7663
(931) 432-4848



MTC-00014208

From: Patrick McCloskey
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You must:
    1. Urge the Federal government to use alternative platforms.
    2. Keep competition alive by forbidding Microsoft from selling 
to certain markets. Keep them out of the Educational market, period. 
Let someone else (Apple) dominate that market space and keep a 
competitor strong.
    3. Make Microsoft include the top 2 competing products in 
Windows XP to finally give consumers REAL choice, for example: Make 
them include Quicktime and Real Audio along with their Windows Media 
Player in standard XP installation. Make them also include Netscape 
and Opera along with their Internet Explorer web browser during a 
standard XP installation. Apple has bee including more than on 
Interner browser in their standard operating systems installations 
for years and it has been great for both the Mac user community 
(consumers) and the Mac market overall. There's no reason that 
Microsoft shouldn't do this freely for consumers too.
    Action must be takes to weaken Microsoft. Without strong 
measures to adjust themm, they will continue to choke the U.S. 
technical economy/ecosystem and suffocate other companies and their 
stock prices * * * Anyone who is their competitor has been 
struggling without investor backing because investors know Microsoft 
is lerking, ready to copy their product and leverage their big name 
to sell it. More companies must be permitted to be strong to improve 
the U.S. economy. The fact that Apple hasn't been able to achieve 
more market share over the years is absolute proof not of Apple's 
weakness or lack of trying but Microsoft's hedgemony, and 
stranglehold on the market, and complete reason whu you need to 
stifled them VERY soon. Make it count thsi time! The American public 
has been waiting for a looonng time for real justice and equality 
and freedom of choice.
    Thanks for respecting my opinion.
    Patrick McCloskey



MTC-00014209

From: Lee J. Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is very worrying, whilst I would 
not discount the very real difference Microsoft has made to the 
world of IT. I do believe that it uses it's position of monoploy to 
dominate the market. Netscape is an immediateexample where Microsoft 
has all but stifled competition and development within the browser 
market. Many other examples exist. It cannot be good for R & R or 
the industry in general to have such a dominant player.
Lee Rogers
Supplyquest.com Administrator
Glandore House
33 Fitzwilliam Square
Dublin 2
Tel--1800 923567
Fax-1800 923678
email [email protected]
Mobile 087 2337681



MTC-00014210

From: Dave/ Carol Heinfeldt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:14 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1695 Buckhead Road
Tignall, GA 30668
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my support of the Microsoft settlement. 
After three long years of litigation, exorbitant amounts of 
budgetary resources have been squandered over the issue. In the 
uncertain economic times in which our country currently exists, this 
waste of federal dollars appears altogether unnecessary. I would 
hope that the Department of Justice has larger issues to tackle.
    Further, the terms of the settlement show much generosity on 
behalf of Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to the formation of a 
technical review board. This board will have the responsibility of 
watching over Microsoft and ensuring that the terms of the agreement 
are kept in place; terms that include increased information sharing 
between Microsoft and its competitors and non-retaliation agreements 
preventing Microsoft from engaging in anticompetitive behavior. 
Obviously, Microsoft has been willing to make concessions so that 
this issue is resolved. I believe it is time we do just that. I 
support the settlement, and hope that it is implemented soon.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    David Heinfeldt



MTC-00014211

From: Joanne Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is highly inappropriate and in contrast to the purpose of the 
settlement to allow Microsoft to use this settlement as a way to 
dominate the market even more. Schools are the one place that 
Microsoft doesn't control the market and this settlement would allow 
them in roads to do just that. Who even thought of agreeing to this 
ridiculous settlement? Corporations need to learn that the laws are 
there for a reason and there should actually be some punishment 
involved when those laws are broken.



MTC-00014212

From: Pieter Jan Pieper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 3/24/01  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    The settlement with Microsoft in november 2001 is disagreeable 
to my opinion, as there is no real enforcement to make them comply 
with an honest concurrency position. Even though I'm not an American 
citizen, I'm negatively affected by the monopoly position Microsoft 
occupies on the world market and the way it's misusing this position 
to force other companies out of the market and destroy the work and 
efforts of thousands of people.
Pieter Jan Pieper
Baslerstr. 10
CH-4123 Allschwil
E-Mail: [email protected]
Phone: +41 (61) 7069491

[[Page 25904]]

Fax: +41 (61) 7069495
Mobil: +41 (78) 6832214



MTC-00014213

From: Shane Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft
    Microsoft has been force feeding low-quality junk to the 
ignorant masses for too long. It1s time that we remove them from 
their monopolistic throne and give their competitors a chance to 
shine. Microsoft1s current status in the technology sector is a 
perfect example of Capitalism at its worst.



MTC-00014214

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
01/21/02
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530--0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The reason for this letter is to express to you my support for 
the settlement that was reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
trust you will demonstrate decisive support for this settlement. 
Forces that are negative toward Microsoft may try to have this 
settlement withdrawn and this case resumed. This would be 
unfortunate because both and Microsoft and the DOJ have spent 
millions of dollars on this case and much time as well. The anti- 
Microsoft crowd argues that this settlement is too lenient. A 
careful study of the settlement will reveal the contrary. The 
settlement will end any contractual restrictions that may be harmful 
to Microsoft competitors. Additionally this settlement will force 
Microsoft to share design code with competitors allowing them to 
create more competitive software. Microsoft concedes much in this 
settlement; there is no reason for further federal litigation.
    I count on you to do your best for what is in the best interest 
of the American people: to implement this settlement, bring closure 
to this case, and to open American business once again to the 
blessings of technological innovation.
    Thank you.
    With highest regards,
    J. Edwin Parrish
    e-mail: [email protected]
430 Arapaho Trail
Maitland FL 32751



MTC-00014215

From: Alex Calvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir/madam:
    I believe it is time for this country to move forward. Please 
settle the Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
Alex Calvo
5 Wildlife Drive
Wallingford, CT 06492
203-269-4891



MTC-00014216

From: scorthell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:04 am
Subject: Microsoft
16800 Sharp Road
Sidney, OH 45365-
January 15,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing to address the current agreement between the 
Department of Justice and Microsoft. I believe the whole lawsuit was 
unwarranted. The Federal Government had no business in pursuing 
Microsoft. Microsoft is a successful company. Bill Gates has tried 
to make Microsoft the biggest and the best. But isn't that what you 
are suppose to do? I am very irritated with the concept nowadays 
that being too successful is wrong. Since when does the federal 
government define what amount of success we should have? Further, I 
am quite sure that Microsoft's competitors had some input in the 
lawsuit. They could not compete in the open market; therefore, 
sought to cripple Microsoft through political means.
    The antitrust laws were created to protect the consumer. 
Microsoft did not harm the consumer. Bill Gates, through Microsoft, 
has enabled the average consumer to have access to the technological 
age, at an affordable price. The consumer has chosen Microsoft, not 
another brand. That is our choice. Is the Federal Government now 
dictating what companies we have to buy from?
    Microsoft has addressed the demands of the Justice Department by 
agreeing to grant computer makers wide-ranging new rights to 
configure Windows to promote nonMicrosoft software programs that 
compete with programs included within Windows. Microsoft will share 
any code or programming that Window uses to communicate with other 
programs. Microsoft has agreed to a technical committee to monitor 
future actions. I think Microsoft has more than done its sham. I 
support this agreement. I ask that you please do so also. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Corthell



MTC-00014217

From: Raymond Hulett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    The Proposed Final Judgement deal is an assault on the Justice 
Department's and America's integrity. Monopolies stifle 
entrepreneurship and are a blow to the good faith of the American 
people in the government to keep the market diverse and competitive. 
Without diversity and competition, the market will not grow and the 
people will be forced to follow the whim of one all powerful 
company. Further more, by allowing one company to engage in 
monopolistic activities, it not only shows that the Justice 
Department supports such actions, but that it will not be against 
future deals of this sort with companies in other areas of American 
society. The formation of this deal by the Justice Department shows 
that more importance is placed on one company than the growth of the 
economy and the benefit of that growth for the American People.
Raymond Hulett
635 West 35th Street #2278
Los Angeles, CA 90007



MTC-00014218

From: Paul (038) Linda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:32am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    This entire case I believe to be an excellent example of big 
btother government being in the wrong theatre.
    Were it not for Microsoft the American People and for that 
matter the world citizenary would not be enjoying the benefits of 
computors in gereral and the internet in particular. Microsoft has 
kept the cost of using computors within range of the average 
consumer and this in itself has fostered a tremendious boon to our 
economy. Our illustrioous Government has brought this ill conceived 
suit against against a company that has pumped billions of dollars 
into our economy. Would it only be true if the past administration 
had the where-it-all to do the same. Instead, our government has 
bowed to the likes of privat busines such as Java to further ther 
own selfish motives. If Java had its way they woul gouge the 
American public for their procuct and computors woul be abscent from 
the average American home.
    Let Microsoft run its own business. Our politicians have made a 
big enough mess out of our government without them interfering in 
private business.
    Paul J. Mc Enery



MTC-00014219

From: Michael W. Liebbe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:38am
Subject: SETTLEMENT
    WHY would you ever bring a monopoly action and then settle by 
giving the guilty party more opportunities to control the market. 
Giving school computers ONLY CUTS THE MARKET FOR OTHER SYSTEMS. Does 
this in turn increase competition?



MTC-00014220

From: Freelance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:40am
Subject: Proposed Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement by Microsoft is as huge joke.
    I must give them credit. There thinking is brilliant. Since they 
are going to have to pony up a lot of hard cold cash, they figured 
out a way to make it do some work for them. So not only are they 
paying their debt to society, they are also making huge inroads into 
new markets, furthering their strangle hold on the competition and 
furthering their monopoly.
    Ironic is it not. . . since this type of practice is what 
originally got them into trouble in the first place.
    LR



MTC-00014221

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25905]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a very concerned citizen living in Germany.
    I am concerned about the Proposed Final Judgement in the 
Microsoft case. If Microsoft is allowed to further develop their 
effective monopoly, starting in PC operating systems, into network 
and internet server systems, it will not only hinder development by 
start up companies in these areas. It will endanger the national 
security of the United States by forcing government agencies to 
standardize on systems that offer less than optimal security.
    This makes this case critically important. The Compliance Board 
should be made up of 5 members (not 3). With the following 
appointees; 1 from Microsoft, 1 from DOJ, 1 from FTC because as a 
virtual monopoly, it is vital that pricing and it's effects on trade 
be closely monitored.
    1 from FCC because Microsoft is much more than a computer 
software company. It is also a communications company.
    1 from IT industry without association with Microsoft and 
appointed by the three above. In case of tie vote, The government 
agencies would vote among themselves.
Trenton Browne
Verdistr. 15
76684 ?stringen
Germany
Tele: +49-7253-92243
Fax: +49-7253-26465
Email: [email protected]



MTC-00014222

From: Allen Falk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:02 am
Subject: Microsoft CC: [email protected]@inetgw
Allen Falk
3054 W. State Street
Springfield, Mo. 65802
[email protected]
January 21, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvanis Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is Allen Falk, and I am a resident of Springfield, 
Missouri. I am writing to ask you to end the ridiculous Microsoft 
antitrust litigation and settle the case NOW. While I know the case 
did not begin on your watch, I hope you have come to understand how 
ridiculous this case was from the outset. Microsoft and Bill Gates 
are being punished for being successful. The government is not 
taking into consideration the welfare of the American economy or the 
American people. Further delays in the settlement will only hinder 
economic growth and will continue to hurt the American people.
    Microsoft has been required to make concessions they should 
never have been required to make, because some other less successful 
company had made some petty case to the government, with the sole 
purpose of getting a bigger piece of the pie. The Government was 
wrong in this matter. Regardless, this matter needs to be settled, 
and the sooner the better. Microsoft has agreed to open the Windows 
system to competition and has agreed to curb marketing restrictions. 
They have gone far enough. They should be allowed to get back to 
business. I ask that you do the right thing and settle this matter 
ASAP.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Allen Falk



MTC-00014223

From: Michelle Pruskin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to move on!
    Microsoft has done a tremendous job in creating opportunities 
for small companies like mine. They should be praised instead of 
punished. Enough already- case closed!
    Michelle Pruskin



MTC-00014224

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    This settlement is an abomination--an example of laziness and 
lack of will which can only result in further illegal behavior. I 
fail to see how since it ``was only money'', but in huge amounts, 
this criminal behavior is somehow less worthy of serious punishment 
and deterrence than any other crime. Microsoft is a pirate 
organization from the top down; they have proven themselves to be 
amoral and corrupt. The company produces a shoddy product and then 
uses illegal means to prop it up in the marketplace. Break up this 
street gang in suits, force them to compete legally and fairly, and 
they will wither away. As they wither, the jobs they shed will not 
be lost, but will actually produce more and more as the market 
allows true innovators to prosper.
    I am an IS professional, and I estimate that Microsoft has cost 
my company well over $250K in the last several years due to 
incompetence and illegal behavior. This is a tax which the 
settlement you are proposing will only extend into perpetuity.
    I am irrevocably opposed to any settlement short of breaking up 
Microsoft into at least 3 separate operating companies.
Bill Weaks
Director, MIS
Industrial Molding Corp
806.474.1055
806.474.1168 (fax)
CC:[email protected]@inetgw, [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014225

From: Terry Rhoades
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/21/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
1300 Riverland Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312-2961
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I was greatly pleased to note that a proposed settlement for the 
Microsoft antitrust case has been announced. The terms of the 
settlement appear reasonable and fair to all concerned parties.
    Microsoft has agreed to make their Windows interfaces and 
protocol available to competitors so that they may attach their non-
Microsoft products. Microsoft has also agreed to allow a committee 
to monitor their progress in complying with all provisions of the 
settlement. At this point, the IT industry needs to be able to move 
on and develop technologies without the burden of further 
litigation. I am in full support of the proposed settlement that is 
currently before the court.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
Terry Rhoades
1300 Riverland Road
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312



MTC-00014226

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General,
    It is very important that you side on the part of Microsoft in 
their freedom to innovate. We need a stimulus to the economy right 
now and this is one way to do it.
    Thank you for your concern in this matter.
    BMcCole 9.com



MTC-00014227

From: Perry Vath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The only way this ``settlement'' would make sense, is if 
Microsoft was only able to donate NON-Microsoft products to schools. 
Otherwise, it allows Microsoft to make further monopolistic inroads 
in one of the few areas where they don't dominate, the school 
system. And, it's not Microsoft doing the bullying this time--it's 
the US Supreme Court that's forcing Microsoft on young children and 
indoctrinating them into a Microsoft life-style.
    Perry Vath
    1954 Andrea Lane
    Pace, FL 32571



MTC-00014228

From: Bob Corman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello,
    If Microsoft's settlement offer was genuine, they should have 
said that they would do it regardless of whether it was accepted or 
not. Otherwise, it's just another marketing tactic.
    Bob Corman



MTC-00014229

From: Ric Emery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

[[Page 25906]]

Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The recent antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft has gone on for 
too long. It is time to accept the terms of the settlement and 
finally close this case.
    Microsoft is a leading innovator of technology and should be 
applauded for all it has done. The terms of settlement seem to be a 
slap in the face. They require Microsoft to disclose internal 
interfaces and protocols for use by competitors. The terms also call 
for Microsoft to design future versions of Windows so that 
competitors can more easily promote their own products. I do not 
think the settlement represents the best interest of a free market 
economy, but I do think it represents the best interests of the 
public.
    Microsoft has agreed to the terms of the settlement so that the 
case can finally be closed. I support this settlement as agreed and 
I hope the opposition is quelled.
    Sincerely,
    Ric Emery



MTC-00014230

From: Melissa Enderle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an educator who has worked with disadvantaged children, I 
would like to offer my feedback on the Microsoft Settlement. I 
taught in schools that had a 97% free lunch rate, with about an 
equal percentage of minority children. Even though the need and 
desire was demonstrated, the school could not afford to place 
computers in every classroom. Those computers in the school were 
outdated and needed maintenance. While some of Microsoft's proposed 
offer would benefit a few schools, it does nothing to address the 
real issue.
    It has been determined that Microsoft had a monopoly that 
included unfair practices. Apple is one company that has been hurt. 
Many smaller software companies that create education software have 
also been adversely affected. How is placing computers in classrooms 
with lots of Microsoft products going to help those other software 
companies? How is this a punishment for Microsoft? What about all 
the consumers who paid way too much for software, including the 
buggy operating system? Microsoft mentioned that it would allow for 
other platform computers to be placed in the particular classrooms, 
but that those schools that chose the Windows operating system would 
get more software. That isn't free choice! Cash-strapped schools 
would logically choose the package deal with more software.
    If Microsoft would simply offer money in the way of technology 
to schools (including funds for teacher inservice on integrating 
technology into the classroom), then perhaps the settlement proposal 
would be palatable. I would also like to see people who purchased 
software get a refund, some sort of fine, and carefully monitor 
future pricing to ensure that Microsoft doesn't pull the same thing 
again. Microsoft needs to receive more than a slap on the hand to 
change its practices.
    Quality is often inspired by competition. Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices have ensured that this cannot occur. I 
sincerely hope that the justice system will prevail and accept only 
judgments that are based on fair practice, and not be influenced by 
the money/power of companies.



MTC-00014231

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen it is my opinion that no further 
litigation is necessary and the case with Microsoft should be 
settled and no further action taken.
    This settlement is fair and would be in the best interest of 
all.
    Joe J. Yarbrough
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014232

From: Steve Penn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    January 21, 2002
    To Whom This Concerns:
    I am very grateful for the opportunity for my own small voice in 
this process. I sincerely hope that each response you may receive is 
treated with the utmost importance it deserves. This is not an easy 
task. Everyone's effort with this case however small should receive 
high praise.
    My name is Steve Penn.
    I am a creative director/manager, content and technology 
developer for media to several delivery mediums from print to 
broadcast to CD media to the internet. I work primarily within the 
Advertising Industry. Within the past fifteen years most every 
aspect of my work has involved the integration and deployment of 
emerging computer technology in both hardware and software 
configurations. I have produced work on behalf of clients such as 
Hewlett-Packard, Micron Technology, The New York Times, Prudential, 
Nike and Microsoft. In this time I have come to learn the many 
strengths and weaknesses of the many commercial products both 
hardware and software I must utilize for my livelihood. It is a 
constant learning curve of testing the latest or pre release 
versions of software, operating systems, development languages, 
video/audio hardware and etc. . . 
    In this time I have also observed and been unduly affected by 
the many tactics of Microsoft briefly outlined in this current case 
summary. I have watched with disappointment as Microsoft has bullied 
its way both legally and financially throughout several industries 
which comprise my livelihood. Time and again I have embraced 
technologies and services developed by a third party company only to 
have Microsoft buy up and kill internally or legally maneuver to 
force the company out of business only to have Microsoft later come 
out with this new ?innovations? as its very own. Of course as the 
case summary implies these products and services have been tied 
deeply into the Windows OS and only through buying into additional 
Microsoft development tools or subscriptions are you as a potential 
developer allowed to have access. Many times these previous products 
and services were deployable on several platforms and were most 
often of superior quality.
    In this time I have also consulted for educational and 
governmental agencies where literally millions of private and 
taxpayer dollars have been spent to buy additional products, people 
and training which have been unnecessarily tied to the Windows OS by 
Microsoft and or its partnering affiliations. Of course as the 
record describes, you know all this. There is a very long and 
consistent profile of Microsoft's behavior documented in case after 
case since its very beginnings contained in the public record. It is 
this public record of behavior that so aptly illustrates Microsoft's 
true corporate culture and blatant disregard for fair competition 
and ultimately consumer benefit.
    After having studied the courts proposed remedy and implications 
of this case. I feel it is but an extremely feeble attempt to 
curtail only very recent past and possible very recent future 
Microsoft behavior in regard to these anti trust violations for 
which it has been found guilty of and has consistently based its 
operational model upon. What is extremely troubling about this 
remedy is there seems to be no mention whatsoever of Microsoft's 
current and future efforts to dominate the Home electronics market, 
the entertainment industry and our banking systems, to name a few. 
These proposed remedies appear far too narrow and quickly outdated. 
They can be easily circumvented in future Microsoft endeavors for 
which it is currently developing. Also there appears to be no 
provision for reparation of Microsoft's current and past deeds for 
the incredible damage they have inflicted to our economy, several 
industries, innovative technologies they did not invent and 
ultimately the mass consumer.
    I am very disappointed in our legal system for proposing such an 
apparent politically motivated and blatantly shallow remedy for 
illegal acts which have and will seemingly continue to rob us all of 
economic and intellectual resources, freedom and innovation.
    I do not have the specific answers, I am but an individual voice 
that expresses what I know is a very large and pervasive public 
sentiment. I pray the court will have the courage, wisdom and 
insight to rectify this apparently inconsistent and incomplete 
remedy proposal.
    Thank You
    Sincerely,
    Steve Penn



MTC-00014233

From: David
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I do not work for Microsoft nor does anyone in my family. I have 
disagreed with the case from the beginning. Judge Jackson was biased 
against Microsoft and could not render a fair judgement. Many 
companies are guilty of the same charges that Microsoft has been 
accused of and they continue to operate

[[Page 25907]]

today free from interference. Some of the companies complaining 
against Microsoft are guilty of the same practices. AOL/ Timewarner 
is one of them. Timewarner has had a monopoly on the cable in my 
area for over twenty years, raising rates far above inflation year 
after year and no one in the government does anything.
    Any punishment against Microsoft should be as little as 
possible. I have used their products for years and do not feel I 
have been harmed in any way by Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David Chapman



MTC-00014234

From: Thomas J Towle
To: Microsoft ATR,microsoftsettlement @alexbrubaker.com. . . 
Date: 1/21/02  11:01am
Subject: To Whom It May Concern:
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I think MICROSOFT is a NATIONAL TREASURE !!! The USA is the 
world leader in the IT arena because of Microsoft. Get off their 
case and solve the real problems in DC. Get on Enron'e case!
    It seems that our inept politicians are always biting the hands 
that feed them. I recall the leering little gnomic bureaucrats doing 
their gleeful act in front of the TV cameras when Microsoft was 
found ``guilty'' of violating the antitrust act.; the typical small-
man finally having an opportunity to enlarge his own self-image by 
getting even with the big guy on the beach who kicked sand on him. 
(You have to be old enough to remember the Charles Atlas ad of years 
ago;-)
    Enough already! Let's get on with our lives and let Microsoft 
continue to lead the world in IT innovation.
    Tom Towle
    Mineola, Tx



MTC-00014235

From: Christopher Carr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:25am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    In my opinion the US DOJ settlement with Microsoft is NOT in the 
best interest of consumers nor businesses. Microsoft has repeatedly 
violated anti-trust regulations, and shown disdain for previous 
settlements (the 1994 consent decree, for example.) Their monopoly 
power has allowed Microsoft to sell inferior products with little 
concern for the numerous software ``bugs'' or security holes that 
users of said software must deal with.
    A stern, well enforced penalty against Microsoft (such as 
publishing source code for Windows APIs and Office Suite 
specifications) is the best way to punish a monopolistic company and 
benefit software users with more choices and better innovation 
(through the competitive marketplace.)
Chris Carr
Support Consultant
CompuCraft, Inc.
Grand Rapids, MI



MTC-00014236

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:28am
Subject: Microsolf Settlement
    I believe this settlement has been prolonged long enough. 
Please, lets get back to to the basics and resolve this once and for 
all. If Microsoft takes the necessary measures that is required of 
them . Let Microsoft go on to be the great company that they are!!
    Concerned Citizen



MTC-00014237

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:38am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The Depatment of Justice, Microsoft, and nine of the reasonable 
and level headed state attorneys general have reached a settlement 
in this very long and drawn out case. Several states are still 
claiming that the settlement doesn't go far enough, but I think that 
the settlement is fair and it's time to wrap up this matter and move 
on. There are some individuals such as Larry Ellison of Oracle, and 
Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems who would like this case to drag 
on in order to distract the competition, but I believe it is a 
personal issue that these men have with Bill Gates. The country is 
in an economic recession that is largely due to a downturn in the 
technology sector. Finalizing this fair and reasonable settlement 
would help stimulate the technology sector and allow companies to 
focus on developing new products, rather than worrying about 
lawsuits.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn A. Newman



MTC-00014238

From: Tabby Stone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    I don't think the settlement is any significant punishment at 
all. I think that Microsoft should have to be made to pay CASH as a 
penalty. But, I also feel that I as a consumer have been screwed by 
Microsoft and I get nothing out of it. I think they should be forced 
to give free upgrades to all Microsoft software until it works as 
advertised without any bugs for at least 2 versions. That would be a 
significant penalty because it would force them to lose the revenue 
stream from upgrades which basically fix problems the consumer has 
been saddled with and makes the consumer pay extra to ``improve'' a 
product the consumer paid for once, which was flawed to begin with.
    Sincerely,
    Tabby Stone
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw



MTC-00014239

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    I am writing to respectfully file my objection to the proposed 
settlement before the court in Microsoft vs. US. As a daily user of 
Microsoft's products, I would like to have more options from its 
competitors. The Proposed Final Judgment allows a government 
sanctioned monopoly which is bad for all computer users and American 
business. The proposed agreement violates the three required 
standards from the courts, and is not even enforceable. It threatens 
all Microsoft competitors, and I object to this special treatment.
    Thank you for your kind consideration.
    Boyd Johnson, Ph.D.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014240

From: Marie Kuzma
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marie Kuzma
77 Worth Ave
Hamden, CT 06518
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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-00014241

From: Jonathan Jacobs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:47am
Subject: Anti-trust settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I strongly encourage you to maintain the strongest possible 
opposition to Microsoft's attempts to continue the abuse of ifs 
monopolistic practices. The evidence accumulated over the its 
existence unmistakably points to the conclusion that without drastic 
and enforced remedies, Microsoft will never alter its unethical, and 
occasionally, criminal behavior.
    Much has been said (almost entirely by Microsoft and its 
associates, whether openly

[[Page 25908]]

identified as such, or not) about Microsoft's history of innovation 
and its critical importance to the computer industry and to the 
economy of the United States. These arguments are without merit. 
Microsoft's ``innovations'' have been made by the co-opting of other 
companies'' technologies, either by outright purchase of said 
companies, or by blatant theft, or destruction of their opponents.
    This has led to a stagnation of true advances in the computer 
industry, and a serious weakening of the foundations of computing in 
general. Just as in biology, diversity is necessary for growth, 
progress and viability of an organism, the uniformity and flaws of a 
Microsoft-dominated industry has grave potential consequences, some 
of which have already been felt.
    Mr. Gates recently proclaimed that Microsoft's new goal is 
security. This is laughable. It is also dangerous and frightening to 
consider the risk to national security that already exists, let 
alone what will happen if Microsoft is allowed to proceed unhindered 
in its stated goal of ``Microsoft Everywhere.''
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Jonathan Jacobs
    ``Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in 
practice.''
Jonathan Jacobs, Ph.D.
[email protected]
Ocular Motility Lab (W151)
VA Medical Center
10701 East Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44106
(216) 421-3224 (lab) 1(216) 791-3800 x2500 (office)



MTC-00014242

From: The Gosselins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: Having read some of the depositions concerning the 
``Microsoft Settlement'', we have come to a resounding conclusion. 
If NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR, an Internet browser, were available on our 
present WINDOWS 98 OPERATING SYSTEM, we would certainly use it and 
have no qualms about it.
    It should be made available to all PC users. And furthermore, we 
now believe a competitive browser market would greatly assist other 
cross-platform Java based developers, especially, in obtaining 
cross-platform Java technology distributed to end users such as 
ourselves through the open distribution of non-Microsoft Internet 
browsers. We appreciate this opportunity for offering our comments.
    Sincerely,
    Donald E. and Yolande MA Gosselin;
    1784 Providence Road;
    Northbridge MA 01534-1204



MTC-00014243

From: Mike Porzio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I don't know to whom I would address this email. I was told that 
I could express my 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. I am an IT 
professional (Network Analyst) for a Bloomfield CT company (The J. 
M. Ney Co.) and have been so for years. I have been doing computer 
work for 2 decades and I have been following Microsoft's progress 
and practices since 1980.
    Microsoft seems to be the proverbial ``400 lb. gorilla''. Since 
the early 90's I have been watching their business practices with 
fear and alarm. Windows Operating System as a product or as an 
operating system was originally a very good idea. Touted as a 
``software bus'', the concept was to have a platform the OTHER 
developers could write software for, to do specialized things, or to 
enhance the basic operation of the Operating System.
    However, when some company wrote some software that used Windows 
and became successful, Microsoft would either buy the company, or 
compete with them, driving them out of business. This predatory 
stance coupled with the ``Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt'' that MS 
marketing would promulgate concerning NON-Microsoft products, AND 
the lack of access to the programming controls (the API's), would 
make many smaller companies fall by the wayside since just the fear 
of not being able to make a program work would cause many a consumer 
to purchase Microsoft products (instead of theirs) just because they 
might be less of a ``hassle'' to operate.
    I think this may be the core of the ``anti-bundling'' argument: 
Microsoft just ``assimilates'' good products, and one way or the 
other quashes the smaller company. Why would a normal consumer buy 
an EXTRA program, from a smaller company, when Microsoft can just 
``incorporate'' similar functionality into Windows and take the sale 
away from the other company? Also, in a parting note: Why is it that 
every other component of the personal computer has gotten better AND 
cheaper, but Windows just goes up in price?
    Thank you for reading this,
    Mike Porzio



MTC-00014244

From: JuneD1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attorney General John Ashcroft:
    As you review public coments on the Microsoft anti-trust case, 
I'd like to add mine and urge settlement.
    My personal opinion is that the suit should never have been 
brought in the first place, and it is now certainly time--after 
three long years--to move on for the benefit of the economy, the 
technology industry, and employees and stockholders.
    As one of the consumers who has allegedly been harmed by a 
``monopoly'', I'd like to verify that Microsoft's innovation has 
never done anything for me but make software more user friendly and 
cheaper.
    After retiring in 1986 from a 30-year career in the 
petrochemical industry, I worked out of my home as an office 
procedures consultant. Not only did I have to purchase a computer 
but every piece of software needed for my work, usually at a cost of 
about $300 per software package. Being of the generation that has to 
struggle with computers, I even had to pay someone to load my 
operating system. Nowadays, I call Compaq or Dell and they send me a 
new computer all loaded and ready to roll. No fonts to install to 
get a special symbol or type of print, no separate clip art, no 
struggling to import Harvard Graphics or Lotus, no miserable Word 
Perfect to deal with. Windows operating system, word processing, 
spreadsheets, e-mail, web browser are all in one easy-to-use package 
at a fraction of the 1980's prices.
    Microsoft just made a better, cheaper mousetrap! Isn't that what 
American business is supposed to do. . . its called continuing 
improvement. Perhaps its greatest contribution was standardizing a 
fledgling technology. I suspect the States Attorneys General who 
refused to settle on an agreement that was tough, reasonable, and 
fair to all parties are looking for a way to refill their coffers 
after using up all the cash they extracted from the tobacco 
settlement (and reputedly did not spend on health care needs in 
their respective States).
    Are they really interested in the consumer?
    Lastly, in our efforts in this country to assure equality, I 
fear we have abandoned the pursuit of excellence that made our 
country great. Why should Microsoft be required to share proprietary 
information its organization created? Are pharmaceutical companies 
forced to share their research and patents with competitors? Should 
Walmart be penalized because K-Mart can't keep up? The much maligned 
corporations in our country, including Microsoft, pay taxes, provide 
jobs and health insurance, and contribute to countless charities and 
educational projects. Let's not kill the goose that lays the golden 
egg. I urge you to stop this trend of penalizing the successful and 
let Microsoft get back to running its business instead of spending 
money and effort on litigation.
    From a personal standpoint, I'm a senior citizen living on a set 
pension and social security while helping support a grandson. I'd 
really like to recover my $3000 loss on 100 shares of Microsoft 
stock. It was doing fine til all this litigation started!
From June W. Webster
5506 Enchanted Timbers
Humble, TX 77346



MTC-00014245

From: Marshall Bradley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to inform you of my thoughts on the 
Microsoft settlement issue.

[[Page 25909]]

This whole debate has gone on long enough. I sincerely hope this 
dipute will be resolved and no further action will be taken against 
Microsoft at the federal level. Microsoft has made a huge 
contribution to our society and economy. At the present, when our 
economy is challenged, this settlement will do us more good than 
ever. Under this agreement, Microsoft has pledged to share more 
information and create more opportunities for other companies. 
Microsoft has also agreed to be monitored by a technical oversight 
committee created by the goverment and to assist in dispute 
resolutions. Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against sofrware 
or hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that runs on software that competes with Widows.
    This settlement will benefit our economy. I support it, and hope 
this comes to an end soon.
    Sincerely,
J. Marshall Bradley
CC: Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network



MTC-00014246

From: Geoff Heredia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been working in the software industry for over 4 years in 
both large and small companies, and I have advanced degrees in 
Economics and Business Management from the top universities in our 
country. I am concerned about the Proposed Final Settlement falling 
far short of penalizing Microsoft for its clearly anti-competitive 
business practices. In my view, this agreement lets the company 
``off the hook'' far too lightly for the competition that it has 
virtually eliminated in 3 main markets: (1) desktop operating 
system; (2) personal computer productivity software (i.e. 
speadsheets, word processing, etc.); and (3) Internet browsing 
software. The monopolistic position that Microsoft now occupies is 
not addressed by this settlement. Furthermore, the lack of 
competition in the 3 markets listed above will continue to offer 
consumers little or no choices in the software they can use for 
business and personal. No competition ensures that consumers and 
businesses will undoubtedly continue to over pay for software that 
they must buy in order to make any real use of their computers. 
Additionally, new companies and their product innovations will most 
likely fail or achieve unfairly limited success because of the 
extraordinary market challenges posed by the monopoly Microsoft has. 
I urge you to reconsider this settlement and its terms in the light 
of market competition. We certainly need competition to bring out 
the best in our high technology sectors, but we certainly don't need 
monopolies in our software industry.
    Thanks for you consideration,
Geoff Heredia
Dated January 21, 2002
P.O. Box 164
San Juan Bautista, CA 95045
831-673-1358



MTC-00014247

From: Don Montalvo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hardly think Microsoft's 1B offer to education is enough 
punishment for holding the entire computer industry hostage. 
Microsoft is such a big company that even the DOJ is powerless in 
getting them to pay. 1 Billion to education is a drop in the bucket 
and from the looks of things it appears Microsoft is wiggling out of 
this punishment by elbowing their way into the education market. . . 
a market they did not monopolize.
    The DOJ needs to hit Microsoft where it hurts in order to 
prevent this kind of monopoly in the future.
    Respectfully,
    Don Montalvo, NYC
Don Montalvo
747-10th Avenue, #28i
New York, NY 10019
Home: 212-307-7753
Cell: 347-680-5436
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://home.nyc.rr.com/donmontalvo



MTC-00014248

From: John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2270 Chapel Hill Circle
Stockton, CA 95209-4008
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I would like to see the Justice Department 
settle its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Microsoft's success 
and size has helped the industry standardize, work together 
efficiently, and grow rapidly. Any further litigation that may call 
for a breakup of the company is bad for both Microsoft and the 
computing industry as a whole. The settlement agreed upon is 
reasonable. Among other things, disclosing internal coding to 
competitors will allow those companies to write programs that better 
integrate with Windows.
    A key goal in the litigation was to foster more competition to 
Microsoft in the industry. Given the increased competition that is 
sure to arise once Microsoft's concessions take effect, I urge you 
to settle the case.
    Sincerely,
    John Morotti



MTC-00014249

From: Raj Chand
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft is being allowed to take over OPENGL with 
impunity
    Hi,
    OPENGL is the industry standard 3D language for 3D developers in 
fields as disparate as aernautics and computer games. It is one of 
the few areas left which Microsoft do not have the monopoly on. 
Microsoft has its own proprietry language called Direct 3D. Yet they 
have just taken over the patents to Silicon Graphics'' technologies 
including as I understand it OPENGL. This paves the way for 
Microsoft to kill OPENGL and force Direct 3D as the global standard 
giving them control over yet another market and unopposed sales of 
its X-box games system yet they have been allowed to do this with 
impunity even though they are under so called investigation. How is 
this possible? Do you not have truth and justice in the USA? Or is 
Microsoft so big now that they own everyone?
    Greatly Insane



MTC-00014250

From: Mike Rerick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have been in the software business for twenty years. In that 
time, I have seen Microsoft grow from a very small company to 
today's megolithic company. In that time, their business practices 
have been suspect on more than one occasion. DR-DOS, Lotus 123 
running on DOS, the attempted squashing of Netscape, ignoring the 
earlier consent decree, licensing terms, unfair ability of products 
to have insider knowledge of the operating system (and get features 
added that only Microsoft's developers know about). The company 
behavior that brought the anti-trust suit hasn't changed any. Ever 
since the threat of breakup has passed, I noticed that their 
behavior has reverted back to the pre-suit days.
    I would like to see very positive action taken to assure that 
their monopoly is brought under control. A very large fine (several 
billion would be a good starting point), the removal of all the top 
company officers/managers, publishing the full API for both 
operating system and products so everyone can use all added features 
in them and immediate publishing as new features are added, 
restrictions on what they are allowed to add to the operating system 
as bundled software, set the same pricing for all computer vendors 
for the operating system, allow vendors to change the desktop any 
way they want with no retribution from Microsoft and very close 
scrutiny of any companies that Microsoft wants to purchase--if the 
purchase would seriously impact competition, then it shouldn't be 
allowed.
    Thank you for your time.
    Michael Rerick
    [email protected]



MTC-00014251

From: John Stiles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to voice my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. I am a Microsoft supporter and director 
of Source of Light -East Africa. I feel this issue should be 
resolved so we can focus on more important issues.

[[Page 25910]]

    Microsoft has had a positive impact on the economy and 
consumers. At a time when the economy is lagging, I feel it would be 
counterproductive to restrict Microsoft. Microsoft did not get off 
easy in this settlement. In fact, Microsoft agreed to terms of the 
settlement that go way beyond the issues of the original lawsuit, 
for the sake of wrapping this up. Microsoft will be disclosing more 
information to other companies and will be creating future versions 
of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software.
    I believe this settlement will benefit the economy, the 
industry, and consumers. Please support this settlement. Thank you 
for your time.
    Sincerely,
    John Stiles
    12 Harwich Way, Sharpsburg, GA 30277



MTC-00014252

From: Charles Clemons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
700 Landings Way
Savannah, Georgia 31411
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft anti-trust settlement has my support. The Justice 
Department is smart in finally resolving the case with Microsoft.
    The details of the settlement include many concessions on the 
part of Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to remove contract 
restrictions on developers. Software and hardware developers are 
able to enter into multiple agreements with competing companies 
under the terms of the settlement. Why would Microsoft allow for 
these concessions? They know that this settlement is in the best 
interests of the economy. It is about time Microsoft be allowed to 
get back to business.
    I think that the settlement gives us the best opportunity to get 
back to business and bring this lawsuit to an end. Thank you for 
your time regarding this issue.
    I am proud to support Mr. Gates for several reasons : Capitalism 
cannot survive without the innovative entrepreneurship exhibited by 
Mr. Gates. His willingness to share his rewards with many others , 
especially in the education field, is commendable.
    Sincerely,
    Charlie Clemons



MTC-00014253

From: Erik Thorteran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:33pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Microsoft has done nothing but steal or rip off innovation, and 
kill competition since the day it began. Windows gives special 
priveliges to Microsoft applications, and integrates Internet 
Explorer completely. This is not what an operating system is 
supposed to be. Even now, with Windows XP and the gigantic ad 
campaign surrounding it, Apple and other small, innovative companies 
are being stolen from. Luna (the UI of XP) is a blatant copy of Aqua 
(The UI of MacOSX), and a dysfunctional one at that. Their Xbox game 
console is aimed at putting the game console under their iron fist 
as well.
    When confronted with a lawsuit from apple a decade and a half 
ago (approximately), they changed the law to get away with it. They 
have been twisting laws, breaking them, and then changing them. 
Copyright laws underwent hundreds of changes to make their original 
OS legal.
    This has GOT to be stopped, my suggestion is to divide 
Microsoft. Into as many pieces as possible.
    Erik



MTC-00014254

From: Kim (038) David Trimm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  12:35pm
Subject: Settlement Comments
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am a software engineer with 10 years of experience as a 
programmer and a system administrator. I have a Masters Degree from 
Johns Hopkins University and a Bachelors Degree from Georgia Tech in 
Computer Science. I have closely followed the Microsoft Antitrust 
Trial and feel that it is my civic duty to oppose the settlement 
between the Microsoft and the Justice Department. The proposed 
settlement attempts to restore competition in the Operating System 
and Software Application markets by forcing Microsoft to ``disclose 
APIs and related Documents'' to other software developers (Section 
III.D). However, in Sections III.J.1 & .2, certain exemptions 
prevent this disclosure. These exemptions render Section III.D 
useless for the majority of products that need to interoperate with 
Microsoft products in order to restore competition. To illustrate 
this point, I will discuss several areas where competing products 
need to interoperate but will be prevented by Section III.J.
    Samba is a popular software package that allows Unix servers 
(such as Linux and Sun Microsystems'' Solaris) to interoperate with 
Windows NT Servers and Workstations. Using Samba, Unix servers can 
share network resources such as files and printers with a Microsoft 
network. Samba is developed by a group of 20 volunteers and is 
released under an Open Source License, meaning that the source code 
for Samba is available for anyone to read and/or modify. 
Unfortunately, the proposed settlement exempts the Samba team from 
benefitting from Microsoft's disclosure for several reasons. Section 
III.J.1 prevents this disclosure because Microsoft networks require 
authentication to share resources (the exemption states that ``No 
provision . . .  shall require Microsoft to . . .  disclose . . .  
portions of the API . . .  which would compromise . . .  
authentication systems . . . ''), and Section III.J.2 also prevents 
this disclosure because Microsoft will never certify the Samba Team 
as a viable business (the exemption states that the licensee must 
``. . .  meet reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business.'').
    Apache is an Open Source web server that competes directly with 
Microsoft's IIS and currently powers over 50% of the internet (see 
www.netcraft.com for details). However, for them to remain 
competitive, they will also need access to Microsoft's APIs for both 
the server and client side since Microsoft has monopolized over 90% 
of the web browser market. While Microsoft may recognize them as a 
viable business (the Apache Software Foundation is a not-for-profit 
corporation), Section III.J.1 will permit Microsoft to deny them the 
ability to interoperate because web servers are considered 
encryption and authentication systems.
    Section III.J is an exceptionally large loophole that Microsoft 
will use to deny any software developer the ability to compete in 
any market that Microsoft wishes to monopolize. It can effectively 
be used to cover Microsoft's Office and multimedia file formats 
(exempted under the digital rights management clause) and their 
attempts to control the Internet under their .Net initiative 
(exempted under the authentication systems clause). Section III.J 
effectively renders the disclosure clauses in Section III.D useless 
and will allow Microsoft to keep their illegal monopoly intact.
    To solve these inadequacies, I propose that the court completely 
strike Section III.J from the settlement and force Microsoft to 
disclose all of their past and future APIs and file formats to an 
internation standards body. The approved standards should then be 
made freely and publicly available to any competitor who wishes to 
implement them. Until these protocols become open to all, Microsoft 
will continue to illegally monopolize any market that it wants.
    Sincerely,
    David Trimm
    119 Arbutus Avenue
    Catonsville, MD 21228
    (410) 747 4403
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014255

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen, I write you in reference to the recent 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. It 
baffles me when I hear that the process is being even further 
scrutinized. After three years of well thought out negotiations, it 
is ridiculous to continue to pick apart the terms of this agreement. 
Microsoft, the Department of Justice, the nine states and a mediator 
have carefully arrived at these terms, which are more than fair to 
Microsoft's competitors.
    Microsoft has agreed to reconfigure licensing and marketing 
agreements and has agreed to do so under the supervision of a 
technical committee that has been set up for just that. Microsoft 
has also agreed to design future versions of Windows that will 
promote easier installation of non-Microsoft software.

[[Page 25911]]

It is evident that the terms of the agreement do a great deal to 
promote the use of non-Microsoft software. Obviously, Microsoft is 
acting in the interest of our IT sector as a whole. Therefore, so 
should the government.
    I urge you to help get our technology industry back to business 
by stopping any further litigation against this settlement. I thank 
you for your time and, in advance, for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Hester
    508 Albert Dr.
    Sinking Spring, Pa.
    19608
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00014256

From: Mark McFarland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft case. I think the 
proposed settlement is a bad one, for although it will cost 
Microsoft some money, it will also give them an enormous boost in 
the education market, one of the few areas where Wintel machines do 
not represent an overwhelming majority. In other words, the case 
against Microsoft was supposed to curb their monopolistic practices, 
while the proposed settlement actually helps them in this regard. 
And make no mistake, Microsoft is a monopolistic company. I am 
surprised that no one has commented on the illogic of two statements 
repeatedly made my Microsoft: first, they claim that they are not a 
monopoly, but they also claim that multiple operating systems would 
hurt the consumer since this would sow confusion. There are already 
competing operating systems--the two most popular are the Mac OS and 
Linux--and these two platforms have a dedicated customer base that 
is not confused or offput by the difficulties inherent in working 
outside the Windows hegemony. This point needs to be made clear to 
the public in order to push for a truly fair settlement and to 
counter Microsoft's aggressive public relations campaign against the 
anti-trust lawsuit. In conclusion, I encourage the Department of 
Justice to push for a harsher penalty against Microsoft, one that 
punishes, rather than rewards, them for their monopolistic 
practices. --
    Mark McFarland
    Assistant Professor of Music Theory
    Southeastern Louisiana University
    Department of Music & Dramatic Arts
    P.O. Box 10815
    Hammond, LA 70402
    (985) 549-5035



MTC-00014257

From: Neil Randle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:17pm
Subject: atty gen letter
    I sent it last week and called your 800 number and told them so.
    Neil Randle



MTC-00014258

From: Don Cummings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:13 pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
Donald W. Cummings
90 South Rose Boulevard
Akron, Ohio 44302-1064
Tel.: (330) 867-6224
Fax: (330) 867-6224
e-mail: [email protected]
January 16, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sir:
    I am writing to express my opinions regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I feel that the settlement agreement reached between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft was fair and reasonable. It 
was received after extensive negotiations with a courtappointed 
negotiator, and has already been approved by nine states.
    I am disturbed by the trend that has arisen since the tobacco 
settlements, whereby lawsuits are used as forms of state revenue 
generators. I am also disturbed by what I see as an attack by cry-
babies who cannot compete in the free market, and by people whose 
real agenda it is to attack free enterprise and capitalism.
    I feel that if this case is judged by its merits, then one 
cannot help but see that Microsoft has granted more concessions than 
was first asked of it. Microsoft has changed the way it licenses, 
develops, and markets its software. These changes are evident in its 
decision to license Windows to the twenty largest computer 
manufacturers, and make available to its competitors any protocols 
implemented in Windows. Microsoft has basically granted free access 
to its invention to all that would compete with it. Microsoft has 
even agreed to allow computer makers to configure Windows so as to 
promote nonMicrosoft software that competes with programs included 
within Windows.
    I understand that the issues that brought about the suit in the 
first place may have been valid, but that was years and countless 
dollars ago. Microsoft will soon make or has already made the 
necessary changes. The only reason that states would consider 
pursuing further litigation is for a return on investment, rather 
than a concern for the public welfare. If need be, I hope you will 
see fit to protect Microsoft just as expensively as you have 
protected the competition. In the meantime, at minimum, please 
accept the settlement.
    Very truly yours,
    Donald W. Cummings



MTC-00014259

From: Mark A. Clawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have been using and programming computers since the early 80s. 
During that time I've seen many hardware and software companies rise 
and fall. Sadly, in my opinion, I have seen too many companies 
develop great products and have Microsoft come to them and ``learn'' 
from them but in reality steal their code and ideas. Take a look at 
the litigation Microsoft has undergone to see what I mean. Microsoft 
has no qualms about stealing someone's code and then justifying the 
theft with a settlement. Even the well publicized $150 million 
``invested'' in Apple was in reality a payoff for pending patent 
litigation.
    Microsoft will never propose any settlement that does not permit 
them to continue doing what they have always done. Their current 
proposal would do the unthinkable, give them a leg up in a market 
area where they currently do not dominate. By donating ``refurbished 
PCs'' (read leftover machines after upgrading in-house) and software 
(read their software, which costs a small fraction to make in 
comparison to what it retails for) Microsoft gives a surface level 
display of remorse that in reality furthers its own agenda. A more 
adequate requirement would have Microsoft spend the $1 billion on 
new machines that did not run their operating system, such as Linux 
or Macintoshes. The findings of fact are clear. Do not reward 
Microsoft for monopolistic behavior. Microsoft will continue to 
practice business the same way they always have until you tell them 
they can't, and back it up with sufficient muscle to force them to 
change they way they do business.
    Any remedy that doesn't hurt them is no remedy at all.
    Mark Clawson
    Clearfield, UT



MTC-00014260

From: Barbara Stepan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I hope that this will be settled soon and that Microsoft will 
not be stopped in their efforts in innovation and bringing us new 
and better products at lower prices. The public is not being hurt by 
Microsoft. Millions of people trust Microsoft with their stock for 
surviving in retirement. We do not have to buy Microsoft, we want to 
because it's better. The big thing is we have a choice! The phone 
and cable companies however is where we the public are helpless, 
with no choices. That is where we need protection, not from 
Microsoft.
    Thank you for listening and hopefully making the right choice 
for the people and not the special interest companies that are 
against Microsoft.
    Best Regards,
    Barbara Stepan
    14265 120th Pl. N.E.
    Kirkland, WA 98034



MTC-00014261

From: Tom Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:45pm
Subject: Too Easy on Microsoft
    I just want to voice my concerns about what appears to be too 
little too late. Those of us who have had to deal with Microsoft 
Windows in its many flavors, since the early 90's, know full well 
that the company has not disclosed all necessary information to 3rd 
parties.
    I have been using Wordperfect and Lotus products from the old 
DOS days and have

[[Page 25912]]

preferred to keep using those products. However, the stability of 
Wordperfect, for one, in the Windows environment leaves much to be 
desired. It is obvious Microsoft has inside information that allows 
them to produce an office suite that works within Windows far better 
than anyone else.
    Additionally, I find it abhorrent that the government is too 
stupid to realize that the bundling of applications, and Internet 
Explorer is just another application, is against the most basic of 
our anti-trust laws. We, the consumer and the competition, need 
government intervention to stop Microsoft from continually abusing 
its position. I want choices and I do not want Microsoft bundled 
products. I want a choice of all office suites when I buy a PC, not 
just Microsoft Office. I want a choice of what browser and email 
programs are on my PC, not just Microsoft's. Furthermore, I want 
those programs to work at least as good as Microsoft's within the 
Window's environment. I am sick and tired of Microsoft bundling 
software with the operating system and jamming it down our throats. 
I don't need Microsoft to provide email software like Outlook 
Express or even Outlook, that is so full of security holes that I 
might just as well post a web site banner saying ``send viruses 
here''.
    Unfortunately, there are too many consumers who are totally 
clueless and accept everything Microsoft hands down. The government 
needs to realize these people have no idea there are choices that 
may be better than what Microsoft has provided. Listen to the IS 
people, the IT people, the engineers and technical people-- we are 
all saying Microsoft needs a short leash and now. Judge Jackson was 
correct in his assessment that Microsoft should be broken up as part 
of the remedy. What is done now must be severe and strict controls 
must be put in place as soon as possible. The gov't already dropped 
the ball by letting Microsoft issue Windows XP with even more 
bundled crap.It is time to level the playing field and get Microsoft 
under control.
    Tom Miller
    GAC Chemical
    PO Box 436
    Kidder Point Road
    Searsport, ME 04974
    Ph: 207-548-2525 / Fax: 207-548-2891
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00014262

From: Eugene Chi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to you about the Proposed Final Judgment on 
Microsoft. 2 areas I am concerned on is that the judgment does not 
address the abritrary nature of what products or services gets added 
to the Microsoft Operating System. By adding on otherwise standalone 
products to the OS, smaller companies have an unfair disadvantage of 
competing against an OS that already has a product that they are 
trying to sell.
    Also, the judgment does not 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. 
Java technologies exclusion in Microsoft's XP operating system is 
more than just an oversight.
    Please include these concerns with others in the community to 
express my concern within the software industry of this anti-
competitive threat that Microsoft will continue to have on this 
industry. Free competition will allow thriving new business to form 
and ultimately help the consumers with excellent products at 
competitive prices.
    Eugene Chi
    Director
    IT.CRM Implementation Services
    500 Marine World Parkway
    Redwood Shores, CA USA
    +1 650.607.5843



MTC-00014263

From: Amy Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    Microsoft has repeatedly used its monopoly power to reap 
profits, and every court has agreed with this. The proposed 
settlement before you does nothing to undo the billions of dollars 
Microsoft has gained, and it doesn't protect us from the company 
employing anti-competitive tactics in the future.
    I urge you to reject the proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft case.
    Sincerely,
    Amy Schmidt
    198 Tillman Ave
    San Jose, CA 95126
    408/292-1400



MTC-00014264

From: Brett Sher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Microsoft has been found to have an illegal monopoly of desktop 
computer operating systems. This monopoly gives them the power to 
expand into other areas beside operating systems (Internet browsing, 
media delivery, electronic commerce, etc.). Microsoft's obvious 
stranglehold inhibits investors from supporting other companies 
witch would seek to offer alternatives to Microsoft technologies. 
This is bad and inhibits innovation.
    Microsoft's omnipresence is also a source of vulnerability to 
computer viruses (a common platform is easier to corrupt). America 
needs software diversity to protect itself against cyber attacks.
    Any settlement must be designed to eliminate Microsoft's desktop 
monopoly, and not be just a slap on the wrist. Even if today 
Microsoft was forced to drop the underhanded tactics and fight 
fairly in the marketplace, they would benefit from an overwhelming 
advantage gained by years of bullying, bundling, dumping, lying and 
intimidating. Microsoft must be severely hobbled until a healthy 
competitive market can reemerge.
    Be tough.
    Brett Sher
    808 Gale Drive
    campbell, CA 95008



MTC-00014265

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:41 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With a market share of more than 90%, Microsoft has a profound 
advantage over companies such as Netscape, Real Networks, and Apple, 
who are fighting a perpetual uphill battle to maintain a presence in 
the market. Any application software that Microsoft chooses to 
package with its Windows operating system is guaranteed to push all 
other competitors out of the market. Netscape's browser software 
used to be the most widely used internet software. Once Microsoft 
started bundling Explorer with Windows, Netscape's market share 
dropped to almost nothing. Real Networks and Apple computer face 
similar fates with their media products (RealAudio, and QuickTime) 
which are steadily being pushed out of the market by Windows Media 
software bundled with every Intel PC.
    Action must be taken to restore a balanced and competitive 
software market, in which the success of a software application is 
based on its quality, performance, and utility, not the fact that 
it's bundled for free with an operating system that runs on the 
majority of the world's personal computers. The proposed Final 
Judgment is too weak to counter Microsoft's monopoly position in the 
market, and I urge the DOJ to pursue the breakup of Microsoft into 
two separate companies for operating systems (Windows) and 
applications (Word, Excel, Explorer, etc.). This solution will help 
maintain a healthy and innovative American software industry for 
years to come.
    Steve Salani
    Los Angele.s



MTC-00014266

From: Vern Scoggins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
13937 Dove Hunt Place
Charlotte, North Carolina 28277
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to express my support for the 
settlement reached last November between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I believe it is time to move forward and 
allow both sides to concentrate on more important matters.
    The settlement is comprehensive and requires many changes on the 
part of Microsoft. For 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. Consumers will have the 
freedom to easily add or remove access features built in to Windows 
or to

[[Page 25913]]

non-Microsoft software. And to assure this and other provisions are 
met, Microsoft agreed to the formation of a technical committee that 
will monitor the company's business practices going forward.
    This case has been going on long enough. It is time for 
Microsoft to get back to competing and designing new software. And 
it is time for the government to use taxpayer money on more urgent 
matters like stimulating the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Vern Scoggins



MTC-00014268

From: Jesse Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:44pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Don't let this evil corporation further its monopoly power. The 
U.S. government is the last hope the people have of ridding 
ourselves of this incredible evil.Plain and simple Microsoft needs 
to have no future in the American landscape. Let the evil empire 
crumble!
    Jesse Walker



MTC-00014269

From: Alison McFarland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft case. I am familiar 
with several operating systems, including Windows, and use Microsoft 
software routinely. Although the company makes good products, I am 
against this settlement. It is a Trojan horse: of course our 
impoverished schools need computers, and Microsoft is savvy enough 
to use that inarguable point as a means of further expanding their 
monopolistic practices. Although Microsoft ostensibly offers a 
choice of platforms to the schools, few administrators would choose 
anything other than the dominant Wintel system--dominant precisely 
because it is a monopoly--over the other platforms. The amount of 
money it would cost Microsoft to supply the schools is not only 
relatively painless for them, it is a sound investment in continuing 
monopoly. Meanwhile, Microsoft is waging an aggressive and effective 
campaign of public opinion against the anti-trust laws that are 
trying to contain it.
    Whether one admires the products and the success of this 
company, it must be curtailed in a meaningful way in order to 
maintain the amount of competition the market offers. I do not wish 
to see a future in which our only choice for information technology 
is a single monopoly. I urge you to find a harsher settlement that 
serves as a deterrent to their practices.
    Alison Sanders McFarland
    Assistant professor
    Louisiana State University



MTC-00014270

From: Louis Grossman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:46pm
Subject: AN 89 YEAR OLD RETIREE'S PROTEST TO THE ACTION VERSUS 
MICROSOFT BY THE STONE AGE 9 STATES.
    I AM 89 years old, born in 1913 in Portsmouth, N. H.--now 
retired and living in Florida * * *have voted EVERY year since 
becoming of age-- served as a Volunteer in the U.S.Army 1940-1941 
thereupon RELEASED per my 1 year volunteer status under the ``29 
year old volunteer agreement''--then a few days later, on Pearl 
Harbor Day Dec. 7, 1941 was recalled to Active Duty and served until 
1946, transferred into the Mass. Reserves, wherein I served until 
received honorable discharge in l953-- 13 years of loyalty to my 
country U>S>A>----Now, at 89, almost DEAF, Very reliant on the 
computer's EMAIL and INTERNET SERVICES which were Microsoft's 
Miracle gifts to humanity,----and NOW condemned-- litigated--hounded 
by our 9 States'' stone-age Attorney Generals----for WHAT Purpose? 
Is it that they wish to return to our Pre-Computer, Pre-Wireless , 
Pre-EMails--Pre-progress??? Or, is it the grubbiness of political 
recognition or WHAT???
    As a Deaf, Patriotic Voter, 13 year serviceman for our country--
-- I hereby wish to be heard-- I HEARTILY SINCERELY AND WITHOUT 
PERSONAL GAIN REASONS * * *PROTEST TO THIS PUNITIVE, AND UNJUST 
LITIGATION.
    Let Microsoft alone. Give it the freedom from diversive legal 
time wasting action to CONTINUE TO CREATE --let them have freedom 
for MORE creativeness and improvements to their having gifted us 
with their ingenuity and research and development to their Miracles 
of communication already benefiting our Country. STOP this 
litigation. FIND for Microsoft to allow them to continue benefiting 
US. PLEASE !!!
    LOUIS P. GROSSMAN and Wife--Blanche Grossman and we convey the 
opinions of HUNDREDS OF OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.



MTC-00014271

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:48pm
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should receive close to the same treatment they have 
shown their competition. They should pay retribution to any company 
effected negatively by Microsoft, still around or forced out of 
business. Maybe, force Microsoft out of the marketplace for X number 
of years. Bill Gates and Microsoft should be seriously effected by 
the settlement.



MTC-00014272

From: ronald johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald L. Johnson
462 Indian Greens Lane
Manns Choice, PA 15550-8042
(814) 623-7383
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 21, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have not been in full support of this lawsuit from the 
beginning and am happy to see it finally over. I hope that people 
will realize what a good settlement that you have worked out and I 
hope that they come to accept it as well.
    The settlement reached was fairly negotiated and equitable for 
both sides. Microsoft did not get off easy by any means. The 
settlement does, however, answer most of the complaints from 
Microsoft's competitors without needlessly burdening the company. 
For instance, Microsoft will be disclosing internal interface 
information to its competitors as well as designing future versions 
of Windows so that software developers and consumers can more easily 
promote their own products.
    I hope that you will listen to the opinion of the many people 
who write into you, who daily depend on and support Microsoft and 
their products. Microsoft is a fine company and deserves the 
opportunity to compete aggressively for business. This settlement 
gives them that opportunity without denying others that same 
opportunity.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Johnson



MTC-00014273

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Legal Action
    Sir/Madam: I own 100 shares of Microsoft stock. I urge support 
for the settlement agreed to by the US, many states and Microsoft. 
Based on the facts reported in the newspapers and my own non-
professional purchase and usage of computers it appears that the 
terms of the settlement appropriately address the concerns expressed 
in the verdicts. As a non-expert computer user the Microsoft 
products make it easier for me and the prices appear comparable to 
other products. Also, given the speed with which technology changes, 
we would be better served if Microsoft's competitors (I own small 
amounts of some of them as well) would work together and come up 
with truly competitive products without undue interference from the 
courts. Further, the remaining states and Microsoft should in due 
course be encouraged to settle the remaining part of the case. Thank 
you for your consideration. CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014274

From: Cheryl B. Richardson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:55pm
Cheryl Richardson
2704 S Surrey Drive
Carrollton, TX 75006-4770
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to express my support of the 
Microsoft antitrust settlement. Three years have now passed since 
this case was introduced by the Department of Justice.

[[Page 25914]]

Since this time an enormous amount of time and energy has been 
wasted in trying to mediate this issue. During these economic times, 
I believe taxpayers would rather have their resources spent on more 
pressing issues.
    Microsoft has been generous throughout this dispute. Wishing for 
a resolution, Microsoft agreed to many stipulations. Microsoft has 
agreed to the formation of a technical review board. This board will 
be composed of external members whose position is to ensure that 
Microsoft follows the terms of the agreement. I would hope that this 
would reassure those wary of the settlement's seriousness.
    Please enact the settlement at the end of January, as it is in 
the best public interest. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Cheryl Richardson



MTC-00014275

From: Karl Maher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/21  1:56pm
Subject: Re Microsoft Settlement
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    Microsoft has agreed to deliver a pound of flesh and to swear 
off any skin grafts in the future. Would you please now put this 
ridiculous lawsuit to rest? Here we've had DOJ, for the last 10 
years, trying to cripple the most successful company in the world, 
while it paid no attention whatsoever to the gigantic fraud at 
Enron. Admittedly, this was mostly Clinton administration payoff to 
its aggrieved campaign contributors, but the Bush administration 
doesn't seem to operate that way. It's your call now!
    I know you've got better things to do than to keep up this 
pointless pursuit of Bill Gates.
    Sincerely,
    Karl Maher
    5107 Laurel View Dr.
    Winston-Salem, NC 27104
    336-659-6800



MTC-00014276

From: Sam Gill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a professor of information systems at San Francisco State 
University. It is important to me that I send my students out into a 
field of work that it stable and profitable. At the same time I want 
them to be able to engage in fair business practices. For these 
reasons I am pleased that we have finally reached a settlement in 
the antitrust dispute against Microsoft. I feel that this suit has 
created a great deal of trouble within the technology industry, and 
I feel that at this time we do not need uncertainty in our fledgling 
profession.
    This settlement is fair and I believe that with it in place we 
can finally begin moving forward again in the utilization of 
Information Technology in the workplace without the uncertainty that 
has held us captive during the period of the Microsoft lawsuit. 
Microsoft will no longer be permitted to engage in monopolistic 
business practices. The company will design all future versions of 
its Windows operating system to be compatible with the products of 
its competitors. The company will also refrain from committing any 
further retaliatory actions against its competitors.
    I believe that with these provisions in place we will finally be 
able to get back to the business of innovation. This nation is the 
worldwide leader of the IT industry, and this is greatly due to the 
innovation and ingenuity of the Microsoft Corporation, we do not 
need to destroy one of this nation's best and brightest stars of the 
IT sector. Thank you for this opportunity to express my position.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Gill
    Professor, Information Systems
    San Francisco State University
    [email protected] or [email protected] (650) 346-4700 or (650) 
572-4731



MTC-00014277

From: Jackie Landreth
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Please allow the Microsoft settlement to go through as presently 
outlined.
    Please stop harassing Microsoft! I believe their products are a 
great value and Microsoft is constantly improving them. Microsoft 
has succeeded against competitors because their products keep 
improving and are better and are easier to use than the competition, 
not because Microsoft has a monopoly. I deeply resent that you are 
using my taxes to hamper and harass Microsoft. The competitors 
should improve their products to compete with Microsoft, not use the 
government to mandate an unfair playing ground.
    Jackie Landreth
    Chief Financial Officer
    Unitek Miyachi International, Ltd.
    CC:`MSFIN(a)Microsoft.com''



MTC-00014278

From: Connie Melton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:07 pm
1902 W Tuliptree Drive SE
Huntsville, AL 35803-1744
(256) 881-8655
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you with concern over the 
recent developments in the Microsoft settlement. I was happy to 
learn that the settlement had finally been reached, but was a bit 
upset when I learned that it is being further delayed. After three 
years of negotiations it seems ridiculous to further dissect this 
well thought out agreement. The terms that have been reached are 
fair and reasonable and should be allowed stand.
    Microsoft has agreed to make various changes in areas such as 
relations with developers and computer makers, including licensing, 
marketing and even design. Because the focus of these compliances is 
supporting non-Microsoft software, it is evident that Microsoft is 
negotiating with all parties in mind. This is a step toward a more 
unified IT sector and a step toward a stronger economy. So, why hold 
up this process any longer?
    I urge your help stop any further actions against this 
agreement. It is clear that further litigation can only harm our 
economy at this point in time, so let us move forward. I thank you 
for your help.
    Sincerely,
    Connie Melton



MTC-00014279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:06pm
Subject: Anti-trust Settlement
    I believe that the anti-trust settlement as proposed will be 
good for the country and Microsoft. I support the proposal.
    William J. Radak
    28948 Weybridge Drive
    Westlake OH 44145



MTC-00014280

From: Bob Hedal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
    To Whom I May Concern:
    I have commented on your Microsoft case before and reiterate my 
concern that the government is infringing on private industry 
operations. MS has done nothing that all of their competitors are 
not doing. The only difference is that MS is bigger and is doing a 
better job of promoting their products. MS has been a major force in 
making personal computers and software affordable to the public and 
they have done so by packaging their products. This practice is 
common amongst private manufacturers that are lucky enough to have 
some unique products. The computer generation would not have 
advanced nearly as rapidly were it not for MS.
    They have been punished enough and the rest of us have paid 
enough of our money in the persecution of an innocent party.
    Please let the ruling stand and stop the ridiculous litigation.
    Bob Hedal



MTC-00014281

From: Ameta Macaluso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clear DayP.O. Box 11408
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110-5408
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion that the recent settlement 
between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft is in the best 
interests of the American public. I think further litigation would 
be detrimental to a company that has revolutionized the IT

[[Page 25915]]

industry and made so many contributions to our country.
    I realize that at times Microsoft's marketing tactics were a bit 
heavy-handed, but their aggressiveness only reflects the incentives 
of our capitalist society, and they are not alone in this respect. I 
believe they are being targeted for their success, not for their 
tactics. Were other very successful companies prosecuted in this 
manner, there would be very few left unscathed.
    At any rate, the terms of the settlement should be sufficient to 
appease all parties involved because they address claims of 
competitors? inability to market their products effectively. Under 
terms of the settlement Microsoft will design future Windows 
versions so that others can more easily promote competing products. 
Microsoft will also grant computer makers broad new rights to 
configure Windows so as to make it easier for non-Microsoft software 
to be promoted from within. Surely a fair-minded look at the 
situation will show that this step, along with other concessions 
that are being made in the same vein, is enough to address whatever 
complaints have been lodged.
    Please accept the settlement as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Ameta Macaluso



MTC-00014282

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I have been informed of the conduct that microsoft has taken 
part in regarding the pfj and I am strongly opposed by it. Microsoft 
should no longer be given the opportunity to be a monopoly either in 
the government's eyes or the general public who consumes this type 
of technology. If Microsoft is allowed to eliminate all other 
competition then the market for the specific type of technology can 
only expand and grow at a minimal rate, leaving no room for 
competition for lower prices, better software and incentives for a 
variety of programs that can offer different services, these are all 
disadvantages that the consumer, referring to myself as one of them, 
will have to face. Please strongly consider this while making your 
decision. By allowing Microsoft to continue to dominate this 
specific technological field, the consumer misses out on so many 
benefits. Thank you for your time.
    Signe Hillyard
    (213)747-7327
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,dkleinkn@yahoo. . 
. 



MTC-00014283

From: C Eguia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft influence on Corel
    While it may not be new information, this article appears to 
show how MSFT dissuades companies from competing with it. Please 
notice the last 3 paragraphs which read: ``. . .  It is estimated by 
PC Data that Corel's Linux division sells about 25 percent of all 
Linux operating systems for desktop computers, second only to Red 
Hat.
    Corel made a decision not to enter into a head-to-head battle 
with Microsoft in the business of word processing software after 
accepting a $135 million investment from the software giant in 2000. 
Microsoft's .NET technology is expected to be embedded in Corel's 
product line six months after it is released, sometime later this 
year. '' Source: http://www.wired.com/news/linux/
0,1411,46421,00.html



MTC-00014284

From: fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I am opposed to any settlement which permits Microsoft to 
further dominate the education market by flooding classrooms with 
its mediocre technology. The proposed settlement simply serves to 
broaden the Microsoft monopoly. Their predatory marketing practices 
need to be halted, not adopted by the government as a component of 
any solution.
    Ed Fisher



MTC-00014285

From: Chris Conroy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:27pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I find the currently proposed settlement unacceptable. Microsoft 
has consistently used their position to stifle competition, 
discourage innovation and prevent other manufacturers from using 
alternative operating systems.
    Chris Conroy
    Heartwood Media Inc.
    603/665/9191
    http://www.heartwoodmedia.com



MTC-00014286

From: Thomas A. Hokel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:29 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Please read my attached, one page Microsoft Word document 
regarding the Microsoft Settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Hokel
    President and CEO,
    Framework Software, Inc.
    http://www.frameworksoft.com/>
    www.frameworksoft.com http://www.frameworksoft.com/>
    President, The Enterprise Framework Group
    http://www.tefg.com/> www.tefg.com
    http://www.tefg.com/>
    Phone: 1-970-453-7293
    Fax: 1-970-453-8520
    E-mail: [email protected]
Framework Software, Inc.
P.O. Box 225
Breckenridge, Colorado 80424
January 13, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am taking some time to write to you to express an opinion 
about the settlement reached in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am 
one of those who believed that this case should have never gone to 
trial in the first place, and I also believe that the anti-trust 
laws are very questionable and subjective (i.e., irrational). In a 
free enterprise, only the Government can create a monopoly. However, 
since a settlement exists in this case, and it will end this case, I 
hope you will see it through and end litigation.
    I would ask you to strongly rebuke those that want this case 
back in court. This case has cost your office and Microsoft millions 
of dollars and countless man-hours. Both parties could be putting 
their time to better use than going back to Federal court to expend 
even more resources. The settlement will end this three-year-old 
debacle, and I am pleased that you have agreed to it. Be steadfast 
in your support and work to implement the settlement in this case. 
There is a huge ``silent majority'' out there.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Hokel



MTC-00014287

From: Peter Hartwig
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:31 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P.O. Box 659
Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
January 13, 2002
Afforney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Justice Department officials have seen the light and offered a 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. Microsoft has agreed to 
this settlement and this should bring an end to this case at the 
federal level.
    The settlement will create more openness and competition in the 
technology sector of our economy This settlement stipulates that 
Microsoft will share its internal interfaces with its rivals. Also 
Microsoft will share the protocols of their server interoperability. 
The release of all these Microsoft secrets will be a great help for 
MS competitors. Furthermore these compromises by Microsoft are 
unmatched in the history of information technology.
    It is unfortunate that some individual and groups have sought to 
put a negative light on this settlement. I am pleased to see that 
you agreed to settle.
    Sincerely,
    Peter Hartwig



MTC-00014288

From: John Macko
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you with concern regarding 
the recent settlement. After three long years of court battles, it 
seems strange that the settlement is again being challenged. The 
negotiation of this agreement was not only well thought out, but was 
in the interest of the Information Technology sector as a whole.

[[Page 25916]]

    After examining this agreement, it seems evident that all 
parties involved will benefit from its terms. Not only does 
Microsoft agree to reconfigure licensing and marketing terms, but 
also they have agreed to disclose information about certain internal 
interfaces in Windows. Overall, the agreement is helping to open up 
the competitive market in our technological industry, which has been 
the goal from the start. The provisions of the agreement are tough, 
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings 
of the Court of Appeals ruling.
    It seems foolish to waste our resources on dissecting such a 
well thought out plan. With all the time and effort put into this 
suit, it seems that it is time to let the technology industry get 
back to business. Our technology industry only suffers from the 
delay of this agreement. This delay can do nothing but have a 
negative effect on our economy.
    Please help support further growth of our technology industry by 
helping to stop any further action taken against this settlement. I 
appreciate your time and your support.
    Sincerely,
    John Macko



MTC-00014289

From: charles houghton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:38pm
Subject: not significant enough
    The efforts to settle the Microsoft case have circumvented the 
protections that Judge Jackson initially laid down. While the 
dismissal of his punishment due to bias was ruled, I believe his 
severe measures were completely justified.
    Microsoft is dangerous, dangerous as it wields enough power and 
influence to destroy the burgeoning innovators in the technology 
industries. As it expands its reach unrestricted, customers of 
American technology will suffer with fewer and fewer options.
    The latest effort to ``settle'' by donating to education is the 
most self-serving action I have ever heard proposed. Do not cut the 
throat of one of only bastions against the Microsoft hegemony, by 
building the road right into the heart of the educational market. 
Apple Computer's tiny refuge would be bulldozed under.
    Severe punishment and restrictions against Microsoft are the 
only justifiable actions in this case.
    Charles Houghton
    317 W 99th St #7d
    New York, NY 10025
    212.666.7586



MTC-00014290

From: Steve Overman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sir,
    I support Microsoft 100%. It's time to end this competitors 
attack on Microsoft. The competitors are using the government as a 
tool to achieve their goals. This issue has hurt the U. S. economics 
and it's time to put it behind us.
    Please leave Microsoft alone. They have given more to the 
consumer than any business in U. S. history.
    Please stop being the puppets of lazy competitors.
    Thank you,
    Steve Overman



MTC-00014291

From: mbmesz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:43pm
Subject: Opinion
    I would urge that the Courts rule in favor of Microsoft.
    Margaret B. Mesz
    (Microsoft product user and shareholder.
    1/21/02



MTC-00014292

From: Norm Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully supported Judge Jackson's decision to split up Microsoft 
into two companies. Unfortunately, while Judge Jackson's decision 
was correct based upon the evidence, he was not judicious when 
explaining his decision to the media, opening the door to Microsoft 
for an appeal.
    I am convinced that, with the change of administrations, the 
government has decided to give Microsoft a free ride and has backed 
off in its enforcement of the anti-trust laws, to the detriment of 
consumers and to the benefit of the monopolist Bill Gates.
    Allowing Gates to essentially buy his way out of an anti-trust 
judgement by donating equipment or software that only furthers his 
monopoly control is absurd in the extreme.
    Thank goodness the states Attorneys General are not so easily 
corruptible as is President Bush, who has demonstrated that he's for 
sale to the highest bidder in donations and support (for proof, look 
at the Enron matter!) If Gates wants to give money to schools and 
libraries, give it with no strings attached and let it be spent on 
Apple Macintsoh equipment or Sun SPARC servers and not on Windows 
based hardware and software. However, the best solution by far is to 
break the company into two parts, with one company owning the 
Windows Operating System franchise and the other having all the 
games, applications and Microsoft network.
    Microsoft's conduct has been anti-competitive and unfair to its 
customers and competitors and they should not be rewarded for their 
illegal conduct. This proposed settlement is simply not good 
government and reeks of corruption, payoffs, and political favors. 
Microsoft broke the law; enforce the law and extract a real penalty 
that corrects the situation permanently and prevents Microsoft from 
continuing its anti-trust activities in the future.
    CC:microsoftsettlement @alexbrubaker.com@inetgw



MTC-00014293

From: Sheila Dale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
649 Cardinal Ridge Road
Burleson, Texas 76028
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my strong opinion in regards 
to the settlement that was reached on November 6, 2001 between 
Microsoft and the government. I feel this settlement is fair and 
reasonable, and I am relieved this dispute is finally over. 
Microsoft has had an enormous positive impact on the technology 
industry. Microsoft has made it easier for the average consumer to 
take advantage of what technology has to offer, both at home and at 
work. I, personally would not have been able to take a good paying 
job after a tragic divorce after 30 years of marriage without the 
technology that Microsoft has developed. The technology of Microsoft 
allowed me to learn one program and then relate the same logic to 
other programs making it easier and faster for me to become 
proficient and take a responsible position very quickly.
    I am a strong Microsoft supporter, and I believe that this 
settlement will serve in the best public interest. This agreement 
will allow Microsoft to focus on designing and marketing its 
innovative software, rather than wasting money on litigation.
    Please bring an end to what seems to be endless and costly 
litigation. . . costly not only for Microsoft. . . but also the U.S. 
Tax Payer.
    Thank you for settling with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Sheila Dale



MTC-00014294

From: Wallingford, Ted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Justice Department, Attorney General, and Ms. Hesse:
    Ideas for your proposal for settling the Microsoft case (or 
trial of Microsoft, if it happens) are included in this letter. 
Microsoft does in fact relish an unfair advantage over other 
manufacturers of operating system software. They control all aspects 
of software development for Intel-compatible PCs, and even flaunt 
control over distribution and manufacture of Intel-compatible PCs. 
PC makers, while sometimes ethically unsure of their software-
bundling decisions, invariably end up choosing Microsoftls software 
to bundle with their machines, whether or not it is in fact better.
    Better, more stable products do exist. This is not to say 
Microsoft's products are bad or good, as that type of judgment isn't 
what's being requested of the Federal Court. However, Red Hat, 
Apple, and Corel make operating systems and applications for their 
alternative operating systems which could raise the competitive ante 
for Microsoft if only the constraints placed by Microsoft on the PC 
makers could somehow be loosened. The quality of competitor's 
operating system products (Apple included) is often held up as 
superior to Microsoft's, and it has been this way for a long time. 
Yet, Microsoft's dominance of the market has persisted for well over 
a decade. This is unquestionable and strong evidence of an unfair 
monopoly.

[[Page 25917]]

    The Microsoft-proposed antitrust settlement will NOT solve these 
problems, or the countless other problems incurred by the MS 
juggernaut, including anticompetitive stifling of Sun's Java 
application technology through deliberate introduction of 
incompatibilities, and subsequent elimination of software 
competitors by acquisition or other tactics, then subsequent 
aggressive inflation of software prices in the wake left by lack of 
competition. I am less concerned about the Netscape vs. Explorer 
issue, however I submit that Microsoft used (less severe) 
anticompetitive tactics (forcing Pc makers to bundle) that, when 
combined with business mistakes on Netscape's part, led to 
Netscape's irrelevance in the marketplace.
    The only way to solve the problems outlined herein is to 
restructure Microsoft as three separate companies. One which 
manufactures and markets the operating system software, one which 
manufactures the application software and games, and one which 
manufactures the development tools. Only in this way can unfair 
leveraging the loss of compatibility with one type of software (an 
OS or a development tool) be reason for consumers not to choose a 
software product of another type from another vendor. You can't 
switch away from Windows because Microsoft makes 90% of the 
applications most commonly used on Windows. You can't switch away 
from Microsoft development tools because the secret methods in which 
the best applications are developed are only known to those 
developers who choose Microsoft development tools like Visual C++. 
Even then, the core ``killer performance'' APIs are known only to 
Microsoft, in order to give the applications they develop a built-in 
advantage over those of their competitors.
    Is it possible to hold Microsoft in contempt because of their 
recent settlement proposal, which amounts to nothing but a grant of 
more unfairly-gained marketshare and loss of choice for poor 
schools? Poor schools may not have as much money as others, but to 
take away their choice is completely inconsiderate of the 
constitution, and damaging to the school programs themselves. Poor 
and often failing schools don't need computers, they need more 
involved parents, more professional teachers, and more importantly 
competition. Microsoft's proposed settlement would have done nothing 
to help the essential problem of poor American schools (which are 
wealthy by many global standards).
    Whatever disciplinary action is taken against the monopolistic 
giant, please clearly design it to rectify the wrongs Microsoft has 
been convicted of. Rather than brushing aside the ruthless and 
morally bankrupt actions Microsoft has committed in exchange for a 
half-million dollars in marginal (tax-deductible) expenses from 
Microsoft to poor schools, please make the penalty severe enough to 
notice, compensatory to victimized corporate competitors and 
consumers, and relevant to the infractions committed! What do poor 
schools have to do with the Microsoft-incurred losses at Sun, 
Netscape, and Apple? Nothing!
    Find a way to restore competition to this free market. Begin by 
allowing Windows developers to be free enough to develop for other 
platforms. Then, allow Windows consumers to switch platforms if so 
desired.
    Platform-switching means consumer-spending, and while it will 
ensure developers who develop for non-Windows platforms won't get 
burnt for doing so, consumers switching platforms means more 
competition, lower prices, high consumer spending in the technology 
sector, more willingness for long-term spending (upgrading 
software), and more tax revenue.
    Finally, separate the Microsoft that makes Windows applications 
from the Microsoft that makes Windows itself, and force the former 
to develop applications for other platforms, because a heterogeneous 
marketplace keeps prices down and innovation up. Imagine if there 
was only one maker of automobiles! This is where the market it 
headed unless one of two things happens. 1. The DOJ submits a heavy-
handed but fair counterproposal, or 2. Three quarters of Microsoft's 
competitors merge assets and go in to debt for thirty years in order 
to buy away a competitive percentage of their monopolized customer 
base (i.e. Impossible).
    Thanks for inviting me to speak. As an American, it is my 
privilege and thrill to do so.
    Sincerely,
    Ted Wallingford
    Information Technology Manager
    Independence Excavating, Inc.



MTC-00014295

From: Tom Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Being a supporter of Microsoft, I feel as though Microsoft was 
penalized for its greatness. Bill Gates is a brilliant man and thus, 
I am not surprised that he is the owner of a brilliant business as 
well. In this case, it seems as though he has endured this lengthy 
and needless litigation due to the fact that the competition could 
not keep up. Bill Gates is clearly at the top of his industry and he 
should not be punished for having the best product.
    I am confident that this settlement was not easy on Microsoft. I 
am sure that you are aware of the restrictions and obligations that 
Microsoft has agreed to and I hope this is enough to end this case. 
I am certain that this settlement will serve not only the best 
interest of the software industry but also the consumers as well.
    I appreciate your time in listening to the public opinion. Thank 
you very much.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Robinson
    8430 Maybelle Drive
    Weeki Wachee, Florida 34613



MTC-00014296

From: TIM BARTLEMAN
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust
CC:
[email protected]@inetgw
January 21, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in U.S.v. Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to 
put an end Microsoft's pattern of predatory practices. This deal 
does not adequately protect competition and innovation in this vital 
sector of our economy, does not go far enough to address consumer 
choice, and fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in the 
unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and 
unenforceable. The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement 
is much too short to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company 
that has maintained and expanded its monopoly power through fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws is no longer open 
for debate. Microsoft has been found liable before the District 
Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its petition for 
reheating in the appellate court denied, and had its appeal to the 
Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided that Microsoft 
possesses monopoly power and has used that power unlawfully to 
protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a remedy that meets 
the appellate court's standard to ``terminate the monopoly, deny to 
Microsoft the fluits of its past statutory violations, and prevent 
any future anticompetitive activity.'' This proposed settlement 
fails to do so.
The Deal Fails to Meet the Appellate Court's Remedy Standards
    This proposed settlement clearly fails to meet the standards 
clearly laid out by the appellate court. In fact, the weak 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores 
key aspects of the Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. Here 
are several examples of where this weak settlement falls short:
    1) The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found 
to be illegal by the appellate court, such as the finding that 
Microsoft's practice of bolting applications to Windows through the 
practice of``commingling code'' was a violation of antitrust law. 
This was considered by many to be among the most significant 
violations of the law, but the settlement does not mention it.
    2) The settlement abandons the principle that fueled consumer 
criticism and which gave rise to this antitruast 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

[[Page 25918]]

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 to 
bolt financial services, cable television, or the Internet itself 
into Windows.
    3) The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and 
instead guarantees Microsoft's monopoly will survive and be allowed 
to expand into new markets.
    4) The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors and to take the intellectual property of 
competitors doing business with Microsoft.
    5) The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
Loopholes Undermine Strong-Sounding Provisions
    The proposed settlement shows that it contains far too many 
strong-sounding provisions that are riddied with loopholes. Here are 
several examples:
    The agreement requires Microsoft to share certain technical 
information with other companies in order for non-Microsoft software 
to work as intended. However, Microsoft is under no obligation to 
share information if that disclosure would harm the company's 
security or software licensing. Who gets to decide whether such harm 
might occur? Microsoft.
    The settlement says 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 permits those payments and deals when they are 
``reasonably necessary.'' The ultimate arbiter of when these deals 
would be ``reasonably necessary?'' Microsoft.
    The settlement does nothing to deal with the effects on 
consumers and businesses of technologies such as Microsoft's 
Passport. Passport has been the subject of numerous privacy and 
security complaints by national consumer organizations. However, 
corporations and governments that place a high value on system 
security will be unable to benefit from competitive security 
technologies, even if those technologies are superior to 
Microsoft's. Why? Microsoft controls their choices through its 
monopolies and dominant market share, and still is able to dictate 
what technologies it will include.
Enforcement
    The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants.
    A three-person technical committee will be appointed, which 
Microsoft appointing one member, the Department of Justice 
appointing another, and the two sides agreeing on the third. This 
means that Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members of, the 
group watching over its actions. The committee is supposed to 
identify violations of the agreement. But even if the committee 
finds violations, the work of that committee cannot be admitted into 
court in any enforcement proceeding. This is like allowing a 
football referee to throw as many penalty flags as he likes for 
flagrant violations on the field, but prohibiting him from marching 
off any penalties. Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient 
restrictions in the agreement for only five years. This is not long 
enough for a company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
The Proposed Settlement fails to Adequately Address Consumer Needs
    The settlement does not go far enough to provide greater 
consumer choice, and leaves Microsoft in a position that it can 
continue to charge whatever it wants for its products. As a recent 
Chicago Tribune story said: ``If you believe that what's good for 
Microsoft Corp. is good for consumers, the proposed settlement of 
the software giant's three-year federal antitrust baffle is cause 
for celebration. If you believe that consumers would benefit more if 
Microsoft could no longer use its Windows monopoly as a springboard 
into new markets, you stand to be sorely disappointed.''
    In addition, consumer groups have opposed the settlement. Mark 
Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, 
said: ``Wall Street's view is that Microsoft's business model 
doesn't change. If that's the case, we will continue to be afflicted 
with the same anti-competitive behavior.''
Analysts Conclude that Deal Will Not Affect Microsoft's Practices
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice has the potential make the competitive 
landscape of the software industry worse, contains so many 
ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable, and is 
likely to lead to years of additional litigation. Analysts of all 
kinds have indicated that the weak settlement will not impact 
Microsoft or its illegal practices. Following are a variety of 
examples:
    ``As we have stated before, we believe a settlement is a best 
case scenario for Microsoft. And, this settlement in particular 
seems like a win for Microsoft being that it would preserve 
Microsoft's ability to bundle its Internet assets with Windows XP 
and future operating systems-- a plus for the company. In fact, it 
appears that Internet assets such as Passport are untouched.
    Also, as is typical with legal judgments, this settlement is 
backward looking, not forward looking. In other words, it looks at 
processes in the past, but not potential development of the 
future.''
Morgan Stanley, 11/02/01
    ``The deal . . .  appears to be ``more, better, and faster'' 
than we expected in a settlement deal between Microsoft and DoJ. The 
deal will apparently require few if any changes in Windows XP and 
leave important aspects of Microsoft's market power intact.''
Prudential Financial, 11/01/01
    ``With a dramatic win last week, Microsoft appears to be on its 
way to putting the U.S. antitrust case behind it. The PFJ between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft gives little for Microsoft's 
competitors to cheer about . . . . There is very little chance that 
competitors could prove or win effective relief from violation of 
this agreement, in our view.''
Schwab Capital Markets, 11/6/01
    ``This is a spectacular victory for Microsoft.''
--David Yoffie, professor, Harvard Business School, New York Times 
11/02/01
    ``This deal appears to fall far short of what could have been 
obtained in court, and what's necessary to protect the public.''
--Andrew Schwartzman, public interest firm lawyer, Media Access 
Project, Wall Street Journal 11/02/01
    ``[The settlement] fails to protect competition in the software 
industry and does not come close to dealing with the problems that 
were found to exist by the District Court and the Court of 
Appeals.''
--Albert A. Foer, president, American Antitrust Institute, 
Washington Post 11/05/01
    ``This is a reward, not a remedy.''
--Kelly Jo MacArthur, general counsel, ReaiNetworks, Inc., Globe and 
Mail 11/08/01
    ``It looks like the government is giving them a slap on the 
wrist. I find that sad. It won't achieve any of the goals of the 
proceeding.''
--Robert Lande, law professor and antitrust expert, University of 
Baltimore, ZDWire 11107101
    The strength of any remedy is particularly important given 
Microsoft's growing dominance in the software markets. Since the end 
of the trial in the District Court, Microsoft's monopolies are 
stronger in each of its core markets with both the Windows operating 
system and the Office suite now higher than 92 percent and 95 
percent, respectively. In addition, Microsoft has achieved a 
monopoly in web browsers, and has seen competitors such as the Linux 
operating system fade.
The Microsoft Monopoly Should not be Exempt from Antitrust Laws
    Enforcing federal antitrust laws against monopolies is not new 
or novel. Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced 
consumer welfare in this country for more than a century. The 
Microsoft case does not represent a novel application of the law, 
but is the kind of standard antitrust enforcement action necessary 
to insure vigorous competition in all sectors of today's economy.
    These same standards have been applied to monopolies in the 
past. We do not have one oil company determining how much we pay for 
gasoline, but instead we have suppliers such as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco 
and Chevron competing with each other. These companies were all part 
of the Standard Oil monopoly, which was dissolved because Standard 
Oil was found to have violated the antitrust laws.
    Less than 20 years ago, the nation essentially had one telephone 
company--AT&T. After the government sued AT&T for violating the 
antitrust laws, the company was broken up, and competition was 
introduced in the long distance business. Since competition was 
introduced into that market, real prices have declined more than 70 
percent, and there has been more innovation in the past two decades 
than in most of the preceding century.
Settlement is Based on Flawed Economic Assumption, and Sets a Bad 
Precedent

[[Page 25919]]

    Some defenders of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ have adopted the view that settling this case could somehow 
revive the slowing U.S. economy. Their motives are good, but their 
reasoning is flawed. What economic theory holds that protecting 
monopolies is better for stimulating the economy that promoting 
competition?
    In addition, this case will set an important precedent. Former 
Judge Robert H. Bork has noted that:
    ``In settling the most important antitrust case in decades 
through a remedy that will have not impact on the current or future 
competitive landscape, and absolutely no deterrent effect on the 
defendant, the Department of Justice has effectively repealed a 
major segment of the nation's antitrust laws. Moreover, any 
potential witness with knowledge of anticompetitive conduct in a 
monopolized market has to weigh the potential benefit of his or her 
testimony against the likely response of the defendant monopolist. 
The DOJ's proposed meaningless remedy would insure that no witness 
would ever testify against Microsoft in any future enforcement 
action.''
Conclusion
    The end result is that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft 
to preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft 
to use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets.
    After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can and we must--do much better than this 
flawed proposed settlement between the company and the Department of 
Justice.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Tim Bartleman



MTC-00014297

From: Brian Heinis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern;
    In regards to the so-called Microsoft Settlement. What a sell 
out. We take a company that has been found guilty of abusing a 
monopoly to the detriment of competitors and customers alike and you 
want to let them off. What a joke! It makes me wonder how much 
Microsoft stock is owned by the DOJ lawyers in this case.
    The hard work of the case is finished. Microsoft has been found 
guilty of abusing monopoly power. Now the DOJ wants to turn victory 
into defeat by proposing a meaningless remedy. Why do you think half 
the state Attorney Generals have refused to stick with the DOJ plan?
    The best thing to do would be to split Microsoft into two 
companies. One would control and develop operating systems and the 
other would develop applications. That way the Application 
Programming Interfaces that are required to write quality software 
would all be public. All application programmers would have access 
to the APIs equally and Microsoft would not be able to disable 
competitor's programs so their inferior software appears to operate 
more reliably.
    The settlement that Microsoft proposes and the DOJ has rubber 
stamped does nothing to stop the abuses. Microsoft has thumbed it 
nose at the laws of the United States and the court system in the 
past and they will do it again if they are not punished. Just the 
indication that Microsoft believes that this plan is fair should be 
a warning that it will not really impact them.
    If I break the law I most certainly will be punished by jail 
time or a fine. It seems that if Microsoft breaks the law they are 
told not to do it again or else they will need to come up with a 
remedy. In the past they have simply kept on with business as usual.
    After all the hard work of proving abuse of monopoly power the 
proposed settlement makes the Justice Department look like a joke. 
What a sell out. Please throw out this flawed settlement and work on 
creating a meaningful punishment that will once again level the 
playing field for software developers.
    Brian Heinis



MTC-00014298

From: A1 Hillman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    Please read the attached letter on the subject. As a retired 
person I am not happy what all this has done to the tech stocks and 
my portfolio.
    Thank you,
    Albert J. Hillman
    2410 Pointe Road Schofield, WI 54476
January 17, 2002
Attorney General Ashcroft
Dept. of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    As a Microsoft supporter, I would like to state my opinions 
regarding the Department of Justice settlement and have them 
recorded in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Tunney Act. I feel 
that the agreement was fair and reasonable, and was obviously 
extensive enough for nine of the states, including Wisconsin, to 
approve. I do not see what more can be gained by further action, and 
would like to see this case put behind us. The issues that brought 
about the case in the first place have been addressed, and 
provisions have been put in place to handle possible future 
problems.
    Under the terms, Microsoft agreed to grant computer 
manufacturers restructure Windows licensing so as to allow non-
Microsoft programs to be distributed with Windows This means that 
Microsoft will allow the competition to use Windows to launch 
products that will seek to undo the popularity of Microsoft 
products. Most Microsoft opposition agrees that Microsoft's current 
concessions are acceptable, but they argue that provisions are not 
sufficient to deter future litigation. I would like to point out 
that a technical oversight committee has been put in place to check 
Microsoft's codes and books, and that the competition will be 
allowed to sue Microsoft directly in the event that it fails to 
comply with the terms of the settlement.
    In short, the current and possible future problems have been 
accounted for, and I would like to see this case put behind us. The 
settlement should be granted a chance to prove itself before it is 
written off as a failure. It has been three years in the making, and 
deserves at least that. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Albert J. Hillman



MTC-00014299

From: b.duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:01pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
6405 West 245 Avenue Lowell, IN 46356-9719
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 
20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to say out loud that this settlement should have 
occurred long ago and is in the best interests of the American 
public. Though, I do think many of the concessions Microsoft will be 
making are unfair to Microsoft and are not in the best interests of 
free market economy.
    For one, forcing Microsoft to increase it relations with 
computer makers and software developers goes against the basic 
principles of a capitalist society in which we have the right to 
choose what we buy, what we do, what we produce, and who we team up 
with. The second thing is that to force Microsoft to disclose its 
interface technology to competitors is a violation of intellectual 
property rights. Microsoft worked long and hard to develop its 
products and services and it should not have to disclose its secrets 
to competitors that will then be able to hurt Microsoft.
    Right now with an ongoing war on terrorism and many other issues 
that the government should be focused on, the last thing they should 
meddle with is free enterprise. I believe the nine states holding 
out grandstanding for their own political interests and should be 
punished themselves for their actions.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Duncan



MTC-00014300

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:04pm
Subject: (no subject)
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

[[Page 25920]]

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-00014301

From: chris march
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello and good day;
    i would like to say that i believe ANY settlement with those 
PROVEN in COURT, to have lied, cheated, stolen, faked evidence AND 
abused monopoly power is too generous. anything less than a breakup 
will not prevent them from holding the future of computing (and 
indeed those who rely on the computers- ahem, government?) hostage.
    below (end of message) are several quotes from the ceo of palm, 
inc. in a recent (jan.21,02) interview with yahoo news. notice how 
he mentions that; a.) they will leverage the desktop monopoly as 
much as possible. b.) they are content to lose money for long 
periods of time (and drive palm out of the market) by being funded 
by the os/office products revenues. Does this remind anyone of 
netscape? Barely has the threat of break-up been taken off the 
table, and they are still/already up to their old tricks.
    if the outcome of this trial is the same as that of 1994-5, then 
you have merely wasted the taxpayers money, and have nothing to show 
for it. you MUST make these people understand that abuse of the 
american people will not go unpunished, and that there are still 
branches of government more concerned with the people they serve and 
protect than with large corporations who BREAK the LAW.
    thank you for reading my message,
    chris march
    network administrator
    prep incorporated
    420 lawrence bell dr.
    buffalo, new york 14221
    716-633-3960 (9-5)
    home address available if needed.
Monday January 21 11:14 AM ET
Palm Software CEO Talks Tough on Microsoft Rivalry
By Franklin Paul excerpted. . . 
    So far, Microsoft, which holds about 20 percent of the market to 
Palm's more than 50 percent, has been patient. Experts say the 
company has steadily grown its share in the PDA market, and can 
continue to do so slowly leveraging its relationships with 
corporations who already depend on Windows in the workplace.
    Moreover, unlike Microsoft, Palm does not have a multibillion-
dollar product like Windows to fall back on.
    ``Overall, we believe Palm's strategy is now well articulated 
and the company is executing much better under improved 
leadership,'' J.P. Morgan analyst Paul Coster said in a recent note 
to clients. ``However, we believe the competitive threat is also 
mounting.''
    Nagel acknowledged Microsoft's dominance in desktop market, and 
its ability to barge into new arenas. Still he hopes to convince 
users that a Palm-driven device is an essential tool alongside their 
desktop PC. ``We are not going to displace Microsoft,'' he said. 
``Microsoft has a complete monopoly on the desktop. But we want to 
be the best companion to the PC.''
end excerpt. . . 



MTC-00014302

From: bill hall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We need to settle the Microsoft Case at once, for the following 
reasons:
    (1) The Settlement proposed and agreed to by majority of States 
and Government seems to be a reasonably fair one.
    (2) The nine States objecting seem to be greedy and I believe, 
in the long run, would mostly benefit the Lawyers.
    (3) I believe the Stock Market would be helped if we could get 
the case settled right away.
    (4) If we continue the Lawsuit and weaken this fine Company, we 
will perhaps make it possible for competitors in some Foreign 
Country to take the lead.
    Bill D Hall
    23694 County Road
    23 Glenwood, Mn 56334



MTC-00014303

From: Tony Fakonas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A.D. Fakonas
56 Via Floreado
Orinda, CA 94563
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I urge you to settle the antitrust case against Microsoft. The 
issue has been dragged out far too long, to the detriment of the US 
economy and consumers. In fact, it often felt like the main reason 
this case was ever brought up was because its competitors were 
better at navigating the political world.
    Although Microsoft's business dealings may have been heavy-
handed in the past, they were not detrimental to the consumer 
marketplace. I, like most (even marginal) computer users, have 
always had the option to use products from any software vendor. I 
personally have used both Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, 
and I still use both Microsoft Media Player and Real Networks 
RealPlayer. I have both on my computer simultaneously, and both work 
fine.
    The fact is that Microsoft has become a dominant force because 
it has provided superior products at good value. The settlement 
negotiated in November eliminates Microsoft's ability to force 
programs and products on consumers and manufacturers by requiring 
Microsoft to allow competitors to place their own programs on 
Windows. The result is a playing field as level as the competition 
will ever get.
    Please drop the case and settle without further litigation. 
Everyone has dwelled on the matter long enough.
    Sincerely,
    A. D. Fakonas
    (925) 253-7936



MTC-00014304

From: Eugene
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:38pm
Subject: settlement
    I do believe that in order to properly enforce Microsoft from 
being able to leverage the different parts of their company to 
manipulate and coerce other companies to it's wishes, I think that 
Microsoft should be broken up into three divisions. The internet 
division, Applications division, and the OS division.



MTC-00014305

From: Brad Redfearn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:45pm
Subject: Comments on Microsoft settlement
    14 days is too short a time to allow Microsoft (via Windows) to 
automatically prompt a user to use or switch to a Microsoft product. 
For many people, this amount of time is not sufficient to have 
become familiar with the operation of the computer and to have had a 
chance to explore third-party options for all software/services.
    In my opinion, Microsoft should not be able to use Windows in 
that way at all. If, for example, an OEM wanted to bundle AOL 
Instant Messenger (or ICQ, or IRC Chat, etc.) instead of MSN 
messenger, they should be able to do that without Microsoft popping 
up and asking them to switch without the user initiating it.
    It seems to me a likely scenario that a user buys a new 
computer, learns the interface, gets online, learns to use email, 
begins to explore the web. . .  And BAM! Two weeks have gone by and 
they still have no idea what instant messaging is. Before they have 
had a chance to explore the OEM bundled software, Microsoft steps in 
a pushes MSN (or whatever) on them. This is not much better than 
allowing Microsoft to force OEMs to bundle their ``middleware'' in 
the first place. Microsoft should have to compete with other 
software vendors on even terms--not tie its software products into 
Windows. In my opinion this means Microsoft should have to offer 
OEMs a version of Windows stripped of all other Microsoft middleware 
and online services let the OEMs choose whether to add in 
Microsoft's offerings or a competitor's (or both). Then Microsoft 
would have to just compete for OEMs business just like everyone 
else. They would not have the unfair advantage of automatically 
being on every system.
    I would also like to make the point that many people who are 
automatically

[[Page 25921]]

prompted to use a Microsoft product don't realize they are being 
advertised to.
    My two cents.
    Brad Redfearn
    CEO @ Evolution Multimedia
    [email protected]



MTC-00014306

From: Tom Rial
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 15, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the 
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged 
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill 
Gates'' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this company or 
protect against future gauging.
    As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your 
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of 
its practices. Their concessions of handing over some operating 
systems code and offering manufacturers some sovereignty over Media 
Player amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrists for a 
multi-billion dollar company.
    I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the 
other eight state attorneys general see the many loopholes and 
problems with enforcement that does little to affect change in the 
computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three 
companies may not be the proper response, but neither is this.
    Your decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is 
a mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please 
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Rial
    111 51st Streeet
    Des Moines, IA 50312
    CC: Iowa Attorney General
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014307

From: Judy (038) Ron Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:53pm
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, would you please put a stop to law suits 
against Microsoft. It is a put down to capitalism and for anyone to 
be inventive and hard work. The government shouldn't go around suing 
anyone. That's not the purpose of government. This country has 
become nothing but one big law suit. I do not pay taxes to the 
federal government or state government to use my money to sue 
people.
    Crack down harder on illegal immigrants. Deport them and get 
them out of here. How about a 2 yrs. moratorium on foreign visitors 
and students. This country will do well without them.
    Thank you.
    Judith Tom



MTC-00014308

From: Dolores Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:09pm
Subject: USAGJohnson--Dolores--1061--0117
W4074 South Shore Drive
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin 53147
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I appreciate your stand for justice in the settlement of the 
case against the great American software company, Microsoft. I feel 
that the nine that want to continue the case are guilty themselves 
of self-serving government harassment. Bill Gates has helped his 
country get to work, with efficiency, and helped get the economy 
rolling. I won't say that the suit was the sole cause of the 
economy'' struggles, but it certainly has contributed.
    Microsoft has agreed to the settlement to get this case behind 
it and get on with its business of innovating to maintain its 
leading position in the worldwide technology, if it can. The 
settlement will open up Microsoft's brainpower secrets, including 
much of the internal code of Windows. Microsoft agreed to submit to 
five years of oversight from a government committee which will 
ensure compliance and resolve complaints, including complaints from 
competitors. In my opinion, Microsoft has agreed to very generous 
terms.
    Thank you for the continued support of the settlement. Let's 
pray that the judge accepts it, and America technology continues to 
lead the world. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Dolores Johnson



MTC-00014309

From: Ralph Bossert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:21pm
Subject: Attorney General Letter.pdf
17 Queens Guard Walk
Tonawanda, NY 14150-6811
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    In a PERFECT world we would be setting at your desk telling you 
exactly how we feel, BUT-- We are writing you today to express our 
opinion in regards to the Microsoft settlement issue. We feel that 
this debate has gone on long enough and that punishing Microsoft for 
being successful is a horrible crime.
    This litigation is just a play to get money out of Microsoft. 
Rather than working hard for it themselves, competing companies are 
using this litigation for their own personal self-gain. We hate 
leeches. We are anxious to see Microsoft allowed to move forward and 
move on from this costly litigation. The settlement that was reached 
in November is complete and thorough and will accomplish a closure 
to this debate. Microsoft has agreed to carry out all provisions 
included in this agreement, such as: disclosing more information 
about certain internal interfaces in Windows and being monitored by 
a technical oversight committee created by the government for 
compliance.
    This settlement and subsequently ending this litigation will 
serve in the best pubic interest and will benefit all of us. We urge 
you to support this settlement. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Bossert and Helen A. Pasztor



MTC-00014310

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    FOR GODS SAKE STOP ALREADY.HERE WE HAVE A WORLD CLASS COMPANY 
.IN THE FAR EAST THEY LAUGH THAT WE ARE PENALIZING THEM.WAKE UP.



MTC-00014311

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While I have no doubt that Microsoft has acted illegally and 
unethically in using its monopoly position to dominate and control 
the PC software market I also question the motivation of the Clinton 
Justice Department in pursuing the case as it did and probably 
disrupting and endangering the economy as a result. The proffered 
settlement by Microsoft is just silly, ridiculous, and probably will 
enhance their market position further.



MTC-00014312

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't see how a company can be fined for persuing a monopoly 
in a particular market. This is what the American dream is all 
about. Meanwhile the companies who first brought this lawsuit in 
have been raking in billions because of their own Mega-Media 
monopoly (AOL/Time Warner). It just doesn't make sense to me.



MTC-00014313

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Addendum to previous comments: Optimisim for rational behavior 
on the part of ambitious State AGs must necessarily fade as 
California continues its anit-business crusade by further enhancing 
its medieval postion re Microsoft settlement via the PG&E lawsuit 
filed this week. The agenda emerging

[[Page 25922]]

seems to follow a model set some years back in Massachucets with 
only the targets differing. It is hoped that Judge Kollar-Kotelly 
will end the opportunities for continued adventurism through swift 
and decisive action even in the face of a flawed result.



MTC-00014314

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the settlement should be approved at this 
time. It has been and continues to be, my opinion that MSFT has been 
unjustly done to in this entire matter. If the court wants the 
public interest ensured in this matter, it should not penalize MSFT 
any further. I say that as I believe that the states which don't 
want to settle are costing us the taxpayers, much money in their 
attempt to further their cause which is, quite frankly, a joke. As a 
Wisconsin State employee before I retired, I used a computer all day 
in my work. Naturally Windows was the platform used in ALL OF THE 
STATE OF WISCONSIN COMPUTERS. It was and still is simply the best 
software one can install in the computer. The state chose to use 
that platform, they weren't forced to use it. Because of that fact, 
I question as to why in the world would the state attorney general 
file suit in this matter? If I were Mr. Gates, I would refuse to 
continually update Windows for those states involved. LET THEM SIT 
WITH WHAT THEY HAVE. It seems that the states are biting the hand 
that feeds them. This whole case was, in my opinion, about the greed 
and envy of certain other companies who obviously couldn't compete 
on the same level as MSFT. I can't believe that anyone should be 
forced to divulge any of their technical information so others can 
benefit. In conclusion I certainly believe that the settlement is 
clearly in the public's interest even though it is not in MSFT's 
best interest.



MTC-00014316

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thank God for reasonable people! It would be a sad day that we 
discourage innovators by preventing them from harvesting the fruits 
of their creativity.



MTC-00014318

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This scurrilous attack on product leadership and the resulting 
drag on the economy and technological development in general have 
gone on far too long. Let's end it NOW.



MTC-00014319

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a good settlement. We must keep free enterprise alive 
and available to everyone. Sometimes talent and American knowhow 
looks like monopoly. We must be able to discern the difference.



MTC-00014320

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although it may be true that Microsoft has become the technology 
leader with regard to operating systems and suite software, they are 
not the only game in town. Linux, BE software, MAC O/S and other up-
start operating systems are available to the consumer. They may not 
be as popular, but Microsoft has just built a better mousetrap to 
attract users. Why do the liberal socialist zelots have to strike 
down every blue blooded american following the American Dream to 
aquire wealth and fame just because they have succeded. LEAVE 
MICROSOFT ALONE!!!!!! The open marketplace will eventually solve all 
problems. Government has no place in commerce and should keep thier 
hands out of the Darwinian capitalist system.



MTC-00014321

From: Larry.Kavounas@RxContracts. com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From a legal point this settlement is great. From a 
technological standpoint, it preserves the buying choices. Please 
move along with it. We are on hold while you are mulling over it.
    thanks,
    Larry Kavounas
    CEO RxContracts Inc.



MTC-00014322

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The assault on Microsoft was and continues to be a political 
move designed to further federal control of American industry. These 
are shameful days in American History.



MTC-00014323

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a fair settlement. We ask for closure.



MTC-00014324

From: bwhellock@adelphiabusiness. net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You should leave Bill Gates the HELL alone! This attack on 
Microsoft is insidious.



MTC-00014325

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should stay with the November 3rd settlement. You 
will never get everyone to agree. The success of Microsoft is great 
for this country. Technology is constantly changing. We should not 
discourage innovation and progress.



MTC-00014326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this suit which should have been settled long ago has wasted 
enough of the taxpayers' money to prove nothing. the attorneys 
general who continue to persue this are trying to make a name for 
them- selves to futher their carrer in their state. Please stop the 
waste of the court time and settle this now.



MTC-00014327

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement. The judge is wrong to change it. I 
urge to leave the settlement stand as agreed upon. Additional 
litigation is not in the best interest of the consumer, who 
ultimately will have to pay the bill.



MTC-00014328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The corrupt Clinton administration is gone; why don't the 
government leave private industry alone. If Microsoft is such a bad 
company we will stop buying their products. Unlike the government we 
know there is someone else to do business with if we feel Microsoft 
isn't doing the job.



MTC-00014329

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that a settlement in the Antitrust case against 
Microsoft should be final as determined in November of last year. In 
fact I believe that there should never have been an Antitrust case 
against Microsoft in the first place. It is time to quit this 
badgering of the American Free Enterprise system. I am reminded of 
many instances in my life where the government has interfered in 
areas where it is not constitutionally legitimate and the people, 
the hard working public at large, has suffered through more 
regulation and higher costs of living. All I can say on this issue 
is. . . . Get the government out of the business of trying to 
control business. Please pardon my frankness. I am appalled at what 
the government has elected itself to do in the name of justice. This 
is an oxymoron.
    Thank you.



MTC-00014330

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the settlement was good and should finish this 
suit.
    Bob Kowell



MTC-00014331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement The requirements of competitors 
notwithstanding, there have been numerous cases in our history where 
producers of superior products lost out to competitors who had a 
better way of marketing their products (remember Beta vs. VHS for 
example). Microsoft has simply found better ways to make their 
products number one, even in the face of other developers' products 
that have been reported to be superior. It's time for the Justice 
Department, courts and other legal entities to stop wasting so much 
effort and resources on Microsoft and other legal businesses such as 
big tobacco, especially in light of their failure to go after 
illegal activities such as a political party and administration that 
accepted campaign funds from foreign entities, then gave them 
nuclear secrets in return. It's time to call the whole Microsoft 
thing off and get on with issues that are really threatening the 
people of this country. Microsoft made computer ownership and use 
affordable for all of us. Punish them? Why?



MTC-00014332

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement I own a small consulting company that 
creates and sells business software for law firms, in-house counsel, 
and small businesses. The litigation against Microsoft has had a 
grave impact on our ability to sell our software. Our software is 
based on Microsoft technology primarily because it has been and is a 
low cost solution for many corporations, small businesses, and 
individuals. The role of our government is to help small businesses 
prosper--not hinder or quash their ability to do business. This 
lawsuit has hurt our consumers, sales and our viability as a small 
business has become weak. This lawsuit should be settled and the 
remaining states should not be allowed to move forward. To extend 
this litigation will not only cost the taxpayers a huge amount of 
money but will continue to damage small businesses such as ours and 
our customers.
    While I have never agreed with the lawsuit against Microsoft I 
accept the settlement terms. Prolonging this litigation is only a 
spiteful act on the part of those who cannot accept the settlement 
terms. Continuing litigation serves no legal purpose except to 
prolong Microsoft bashing. Please consider the small businesses who 
have weathered this litigation storm with Microsoft. Help us stay in 
business and once again become viable by terminating this protracted 
vindictive litigation. Kristi LeaMaster



MTC-00014333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bring the antitrust case to an end. I believe the settlement is 
fair and Microsoft is taking the required steps to rectify the 
situation.



MTC-00014334

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    No more litigation.Settle it now and stop wasting our tax money 
We agree with the present status.



MTC-00014335

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement The U.S. Government and the various 
states involved should stop wasting taxpayers' money and proceed 
with the settlement as quickly as possible. This case should never 
even have been brought--it was merely at the behest of a few whining 
competitors who don't understand how free markets are supposed to 
work as well as the ever-hungry trial /tort lawyers and a biased 
political administration. I should mention that I am an IT 
professional with no connection to any of the parties involved 
except for being a (usually) satisfied customer of Microsoft. This 
is a rapidly changing field and anyone who gives the customer more 
product for less inflation-adjusted cost over a period of years as 
Microsoft has constantly done has my vote. In addition Judge 
Penfield clearly was such a biased judge that the entire original 
trial was a travesty!
    Very truly yours

[[Page 25923]]

    David M. Waters



MTC-00014336

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At a time when our government is allowing mega- companies to 
merge. it is incomprehensible that Microsoft is being singled out 
for abusing our anti-trust laws. Instead we should be encouraging 
them to continue doing the research and development that will enable 
us to become an even greater country that we are.



MTC-00014337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is about time to let the MicroSoft case drop. You 
have caused enough trouble for the hi-tech industry already. Without 
MicroSoft we would still be using Osborne Computers with CP/M 
operating system. We should give thanks to MicroSoft at our daily 
prayers instead of trying to ruin them.



MTC-00014338

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time for the legal action against Microsoft to cease. A 
settlement has been reached and only those states with greedy 
financial interests continue to pursue legal action. A company that 
has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on legal issues has been 
punished enough. Let the settlement be approved as is which is in 
the best interests of the software industry and consumers across the 
nation. Stop letting states pander to the desires of Microsoft's 
bitter competitors.



MTC-00014339

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Go with the November settlement and get the government and 
courts off of Microsoft s back. This is in the best interests of 
technology and the economy.



MTC-00014340

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is long overdue that a settlement in this case be finalized. 
It will be to the overall benefit to our economy and competition.



MTC-00014341

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney Anti trust Devision:
    Renata
    Never in history before has it been so important to embrace the 
future of technology. Microsoft is a major contributer to the future 
and the Technology Industry. We have reached a point in the U.S. 
where we can no longer afford to attack the ones that are doing good 
for America. People need to open their eyes and look apon the real 
threats of this nation. America should get this settlement behind us 
and move on with the future. Because the key to it all is everyone 
working together!
    Sincerely
    Delilah Weeks
    Minolta Business Solutions



MTC-00014342

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really feel this case has gone on long enough. Technology 
moves so fast and the issues in this case move on to other companies 
just as fast. Seems that government just has to go after the smart 
and inoventive that are leaders in creativity. The only thing I care 
about is that my computer works and the software does all that it is 
supposed to do. I am not a techie but I am learning more all the 
time and I like most of my friends am just a home user who has used 
a computer for our business and now use it for a varied choise of 
projects.The only other comment I have is a wish for the software to 
be less expensive for we who are on a more limited income.
    Thank You
    Patricia Torngren



MTC-00014343

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Probably fair but kinda shame to pick on Gates when he had the 
smarts and get-up-and-go to make MS what it is today.



MTC-00014344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Those of us who HAVE to work with Microsoft Windows every day 
consider the settlement a joke. Not only is it a poor OS but it s 
built-in control characteristics make it very difficult to use 
software like Netscape ie: Compare the connection times to the 
Internet using IE 5 vs. Netscape 4.7. There are MANY more examples. 
We can t wait for Redhat! Bill Gates has really let us down while he 
pursues his dream the GUI and other cumbersome and difficult 
applications.



MTC-00014345

From: Mitchell Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    You ought to be ashamed of yourselves! Millions of taxpayer-
dollars wasted, and this toothless piece of garbage is the best that 
you can come up with? You might as well have given all that money to 
Microsoft. .it certainly would have had the same lack of effect as 
your settlement.
    The objecting states, including California, want to see 
Microsoft receive SOME punishment. The DOJ seems to want the case to 
just go away, so they've come up with this impotent compact. Listen 
to the objecting states, because unlike Bush and Ashcroft, the 
American people want something for our money, and we want an end to 
the abuse of monopoly power by Microsoft.
    Hell, if you'd like to follow Judge Jackson's original order and 
break ``em up, I'm all for it! Or better yet (and certainly more 
just), what about this:
    1. Microsoft deliberately cheated capitalism, the economic 
foundation of our nation, by engaging in anti-competitive abuses of 
its monopoly power, and
    2. The resulting damage to technological innovation (to 
competing companies who could broaden consumer choice, as well as 
exponentially advance the usability of the personal computer to said 
consumers) can never be fully appreciated, measured, or overcome, 
and
    3. Those who would sabotage this country, effectively aiding 
foreign industries in coming closer to our abilities, are guilty of 
treason, and
    4. Treason can be punished by death, hence
    5. Microsoft must be killed. The stock price is immediately 
frozen, and the company dissolved over the course of the next five 
years, with all its units and patents on the auction block to the 
highest bidder to satisfy the corporation's debts and to the extent 
possible, shareholder equity. Of course, MS officers would not be 
allowed to sell or retain their stock as it was obtained through 
illegal acts, and it won't do them any good anyway because they'll 
be jailed for life for defrauding stockholders by engaging in 
illegal activity for the past ten years without disclosure.
    Now THAT is just punishment. In capitalism, there can be no 
greater crime than anti-competitive behavior. The corporations, 
directors, and officers of this country need to know that if they 
engage in unfair, unlawful, and/or anticompetitive behavior that 
they will face the most dire consequences: corporate death, and yes, 
even death to the officers and directors responsible. The death of a 
few dozen men will once again allow our nation, even our world, to 
flourish technologically. You could even televise Bill and Steve's 
executions to give the public some sense of closure, that the DOJ 
did its job.
    If you were truly a government beholden to the citizens who pay 
you, and not to the special interests (businesses), THIS is what you 
would do.
    How disappointing and embarrassing you are to our nation.
    Mitchell Smith
    Irvine, CA



MTC-00014346

From: Dana Thomson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I would like to express my support for the proposed settlement 
plan in the Microsoft anti-trust case and accordingly urge you and 
the administration to work for its adoption. The plan allows 
Microsoft to continue to exist as one integrated entity, which I 
feel maintains the competitive environment that is necessary for all 
companies to operate. I feel this is vitally important to the 
American IT industry and to reenergizing our whole economy. The plan 
is fair, as Microsoft must now concede to the rest of the IT 
industry certain rights of access to Windows systems and other 
company technology. Product licensing by Microsoft will now be at 
essentially uniform terms for the major consumer manufacturers. 
Microsoft will be forbidden to take any retaliatory market actions 
against the complainant competitors and it must cease any future 
anti-competitive practices. These terms and others should surely 
satisfy Microsoft's more honest competitors and should suffice to 
warrant your support of the settlement.
    Would you please see your way toward helping to end this 
controversy at the federal level, for everyone's sake?
    Sincerely,
    Dana Thomson
    2810 Cobblestone Court
    Schnecksville, PA 18078 USA
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00014347

From: Rob Steinbach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe, in particular, the current proposed DOJ final 
judgement: Fails to reduce the application barrier to entry that 
Microsoft was found to have illegal protected.

[[Page 25924]]

    Fails to remedy the illegal injury that Microsoft was found to 
have done to Netscape Navigator(TM) and the browser market.
    Fails to curtail Microsoft's illegal bundling of middleware 
programs including browsers, media players, instant messaging 
software, and, in the future, possibly firewalls and anti-virus 
software into the monopoly Microsoft Windows(TM) operating system.
    Is exceedingly ambiguous and easily subject to manipulation by 
Microsoft because the judgement lacks an effective enforcement 
mechanism.
    Personally, 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, but I feel 
this settlement is grossly insufficient to meet this goal.
    In summary, I feel that the current proposed DOJ settlement 
falls far short of the goal set by the District Court ruling.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Steinbach
    Programmer/Analyst
    Ideal Chemical and Supply, Co.
    4025 Air Park Street
    Memphis, TN 38118



MTC-00014348

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have not followed the settlement in detail, but feel the 
Government is stepping out of bounds to drag this out this long. It 
is my understanding they have spent more money so far than the first 
year of the Bush taxcut. I resent the collective federal ands State 
governments to get this involved in trying th supress what has been 
free enterprise and the efforts of a brilliant individual. I cannot 
recognize Bill Gates had any intention of harming any one's efforts, 
and his genious enhanced many marginal persons production. In my 
lifetime the Government broke up the AT&T telephone system and 
ruined it for the world. Stop the litigation now, and get on with 
the agreement reached by the Government and nine states. We need 
positive efforts in our economy, and the world-wide association of 
the public and Microsoft could only be positive.
    R. E. Stong



MTC-00014349

From: Diane Mannix
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Mannix
PO Box 363
Avon, MT 59713
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Mannix



MTC-00014350

From: Ralph Mannix
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Mannix
PO Box 363
Avon, MT 59713
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Mannix



MTC-00014351

From: Mark D Ligget
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the settlement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice. It is fair and removes uncertainty in our economy. It 
should go into effect. The current recession began with the original 
ruling against Microsoft, which has been one of the great economic 
engines of the USA.



MTC-00014352

From: Kathy Gustafson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathy Gustafson 162 McDevitt Rd.
Beaver Falls, PA 15010
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Gustafson



MTC-00014353

From: John Bowman
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Bowman
3512 Roxford Drive
Champaign, IL 61822
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition

[[Page 25925]]

in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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. Bowman



MTC-00014354

From: Harry Holding
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Holding
1003 Wetherby Way
Alpharetta, Ga 30022
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Holding



MTC-00014355

From: Harry Thompson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Thompson 4271 N. RiverGrove Circle
Tucson, AZ 85719
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Thompson



MTC-00014356

From: McNalley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
Michael McNalley
2425 Fairoyal Dr.
Des Peres Mo.63131
USA
Fax 314 965 7040
Home Phone 314 965 7040
Email [email protected]
Jan. 21, 2002
    Dear Mr. AShcroft,
    In regaards to the government settlement with Microsoft, I 
wouldlike to note my approval of going forward with the deal upon 
completion of the public comment period this month. I have supported 
Microsoft 100% during this process, and this agreement appears to be 
the only solution that will appease the critics, yet keep 
Microsoft's successful business structure intact.
    In my opinion this case was inspired by a group of competitors 
who wished to tear down this fine company, and thereby gain market 
share for themselves. It was obviously acco,mplished by political 
means, and certainly has done no good in my eyes to those who were 
inferior buisness-- wise. All of the concessions that Microsoft has 
made, I believe have been made under significant pressure generated 
by Democrat hacks.
    After extensive negotiations with a mediator appointed by the 
court, Microsoft has made a serious attempt to offer competitors a 
wider attempt to succeed where they were doing poorly, a free gift 
to them that cost Microsoft untold Millions of dollars in defense 
efforts.
    I cannot say that justice was done!!!
    At this point, we should let these terms be implemented in the 
interest of our country in general. This type of frivilous lawsuit 
should be outlawed. It only makes millions for the lawyers involved.
    Sincerely,
    Michael McNalley



MTC-00014357

From: Luke A. Kanies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    [Text body exceeds maximum size of message body (8192 bytes). It 
has been converted to attachment.]
    To whom it may concern:
    My name is Luke Kanies, and I am currently employed as an 
Infrastructure Architect in the computer industry, and have been in 
the computer industry for nearly six years. I have worked with all 
currently popular computer platforms, and have long taken an 
interest in the computer industry as an entity, rather than just 
specific technologies or companies.
    It is my opinion, based on my technical understanding of how 
Microsoft impacts the computer industry, that the proposed 
settlement will be bad for the computer instustry, and possibly even 
bad for Microsoft. Further, even if I thought that the remedy itself 
were enough, the fact that it contains no actual punishment for not 
staying within the agreement would be enough for me to be convinced 
of the agreement's inadequacy.
    First, the remedy:
    The proposed settlement does not in any way limit the source of 
Microsoft's power, it merely addresses some of the ways in which 
Microsoft has already abused its power--it does not attempt to limit 
the ways in which Microsoft will attempt to gather power in the 
future.
    Some of the key areas I believe that the settlement should have 
addressed but did not are: Proprietary file formats, illegally 
leveraging their monopoly to enter new markets (such as game 
consoles and ISP services), and modifying existing standards in a 
non-standard way in order to interfere with vendor compatibility.
    Proprietary file formats:
    One of Microsoft's main sources of income is from their Office 
suite (I believe it is greater than 50% of their income). In fact, I 
find it curious that this case covered Microsoft's monopoly in 
operating systems but seemed to largely ignore their even more 
entrenched monopoly in office suites.
    One of the main reasons that Microsoft has such a strong market 
presence in office suites is because their file formats are 
proprietary; for instance, my wife's father owns a commercial 
architecture firm (Ritterbush, Ellig, Holsing, in Bismarck, ND) 
which was forced to switch from using Corel WordPerfect to Microsoft 
Word because many of their customers required

[[Page 25926]]

communication using Microsoft's proprietary file formats. Even 
though he preferred the non-Microsoft application, he was forced to 
give in to Microsoft's monopoly because other vendors are unable to 
effectively reverse-engineer Microsoft's file formats and thus 
support them. That difficulty is not accidental, either. Microsoft 
has a history of modifying their file formats with each new version 
of software, both to force users to upgrade and also to make it more 
difficult for non-Microsoft programs to read these formats. This 
trick would work against Microsoft if they were not a monopoly, but 
because of their market share it works very well in forcing users to 
always spend the money on the latest versions of Microsoft Office 
while keeping other vendors from supporting the current version of 
the file formats.
    I believe that any settlement agreement should stipulate that 
Microsoft publicly release specifications for every file format or 
protocol which they either have a monopoly in (such as their Office 
formats) or is used or required by a product which they have a 
monopoly in (such as their file sharing protocol, CIFS).
    Illegally leveraging their monopoly:
    As we all know, it is not illegal to have a monopoly, it is only 
illegal to use the power from the monopoly to either maintain it or 
to enter new markets. The settlement agreement discusses specific 
instances of this, but in no way attempts to discuss this in general 
terms. This is a serious failing of the settlement agreement, 
because it only hopes to address current illegal behaviour but in no 
way attempts to curtail different types of future illegal behaviour.
    Even using specific examples, it is very easy to find examples 
of Microsoft leveraging their monopoly to enter new markets, which 
is illegal (because they have already been found to be a monopoly). 
Two of the most pertinent examples are their MSN service and their 
Xbox gaming console.
    MSN could not succeed if every copy of Microsoft Windows did not 
come with a client for it. This is an obvious example of Microsoft 
leveraging their monopoly in operating systems to enter the market 
of Internet Service Providing. In fact, MSN is now the second 
largest ISP in the country, purely because of the level of placement 
it gets in all Microsoft products. According to antitrust rules, 
this is clearly illegal, yet the settlement agreement does not even 
mention this very important area.
    Another very high profile area which Microsoft has leveraged 
their monopoly to enter is gaming consoles. The main touted 
advantage of Microsoft's Xbox is that game developers can use 
roughly the same programming APIs (Application Programming 
Interfaces) on the Xbox as they do on Windows, making game 
development easier. Again, this is a clear example of Microsoft 
using the monopoly of their Windows OSes and the resulting ubiquity 
of Microsoft Windows APIs to leverage themselves into another, 
unrelated, market. This is another example of something which 
antitrust law states is illegal but which is not even mentioned in 
the settlement agreement.
    In addition to Microsoft using their marketshare to branch into 
new markets, both of the above products have lost or will lose so 
much money that if they had been attempted in the same manner by 
another company, they would have likely forced that company out of 
business. However, because of all of the money Microsoft has been 
able to accumulate, as a direct result of their monopoly, they are 
able to afford to lose significant amounts of money just in order to 
get into a new market. Of course, this was exactly how they gained 
dominance in the browser market, also.
    Modifying standards:
    One of the practices Microsoft is most famous for, often called 
``embracing and extending'', is taking an existing standard as 
developed by an independent standards body (such as the IETF) and 
adopting it while modifying it slightly. This adoption and 
modification allows Microsoft to claim compliance yet actually makes 
Microsoft's products incompatible with products which implement the 
actual standard.
    Without going into detail about them, some examples of standards 
which Microsoft has adopted but modified to suit their tastes are 
Java (a programming language whose modification resulted in a 
lawsuit which Microsoft lost), LDAP (a directory server protocol 
which Microsoft's Active Directory and Exchange services use), and 
DNS (which their Active Directory also uses).
    In a normally operating free market, if a non-monopoly chooses 
to implement a modified form of a standard, then that company is 
nearly always punished for that choice. Microsoft's monopoly, 
however, protects them from the punishment that would normally be 
inflicted on them; this unfair protection from free-market rules is 
one of the main reasons for antitrust laws in the first place, so it 
would certainly make sense if any settlement agreement attempted to 
make Microsoft once again subject to the laws of the marketplace. 
Instead, the proposed settlement agreement is strangely silent on 
this entire concept, thus giving Microsoft further free reign to 
force their modified standards onto an unwilling computer industry.
    Enforcement:
    As to what happens to Microsoft if they fail to uphold the 
restrictions included in the settlement agreement, that is the 
portion of the agreement that I find most lacking.
    The enforcement clauses of the settlement agreement remind me of 
the old stories of a British police officer's lack of credible 
threat: ``Stop, or I'll say stop again!''. As far as I can tell, if 
Microsoft does not follow the settlement agreement, then their 
punishment will be that the length of the agreement will be 
extended. Their will be no monetary punishment, no marketplace or 
legal punishment, merely that as long as Microsoft does not follow 
the, the rules will continue to be in effect.
    This is purely nonsensical, as it provides no real motivation 
for Microsoft to even follow the terms of the agreement. There are 
no teeth to it forcing them to comply, merely an advisory panel 
which will report of their level of compliance.
    As demonstrated by Microsoft's lack of compliance to their 1995 
``Consent Decree'', it is imperative that any settlement contain 
specific monetary or legal punishments in the event of their lack of 
compliance with the agreement. Anything less is providing them 
nearly free reign to continue to flout the law.
    Even if monetary punishment clauses are added, they must be 
large enough to actually serve as a threat to Microsoft. They have 
the largest, or one of the largest, market capitalizations in the 
world, and have billions in cash and tens of billions in essentially 
liquid forms; fining them one million dollars, or even ten million 
dollars, isn't really enough money for them to notice. Any monetary 
punishment should be equivalent to the money they have gained 
through illegally maintaining their monopoly, and that number is at 
least into the billions of dollars.
    Conclusion:
    Although these are what I believe to be the most obvious 
problems with the proposed settlement agreement, they are by no 
means a comprehensive list of the problems I find. Generally 
speaking, I find the settlement to be extremely light, given that 
Microsoft has already been found to be a monopoly by the US Court of 
Appeals and has been found to have illegally maintained and 
leveraged that monopoly, and given the obviously huge amount of 
money they have earned from having and maintaning (illegally) this 
monopoly.
    It is especially galling that the US Department of Justice 
proposed a harsher settlement before Microsoft was even found to be 
a monopoly, yet now that Microsoft has lost that battle the US DoJ 
has decided to reduce their demands, rather than increasing them.
    Luke A. Kanies
    Infrastructure Architecture Consultant
    Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation
    (615) 460-0031
    [email protected] 2314 Vaulx Lane
    Nashville, TN 37204-2626



MTC-00014358

From: Frank Lowney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to me that Microsoft is about to escape 
responsibility for its continuing anti-competitive behaviors. If 
true, that would reflect rather poorly on our system of laws and on 
DOJ as an advocate of the people of the United States.
    The fact that those anti-competitive behaviors continue, albeit 
more subtly, to this day indicate to me that no remedy that relies 
upon Microsoft self-control will be effective. I would not want to 
see this company destroyed but I would like to see a significant 
leveling of the software and operating system playing field.
    Splitting MS into at least two parts, one for operating systems 
and the other for application software seems to me to be the only 
reasonable remedy.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this e-mail.
    Best regards,
    Dr. Frank Lowney [email protected]
    Director, Electronic Instructional Services, a unit of the 
Office of Information and Instructional Technology,

[[Page 25927]]

    Professional Pages: http://www.gcsu.edu/oiit/eis/
    Personal Pages: http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/flowney
    Voice: (478) 445-5260



MTC-00014359

From: Susan Whitaker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Whitaker
16080 NW 135 Street
Platte City, MO 64079
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    I am not completely familiar with the final agreement; however, 
I do believe there was no shortage of high-tech companies. Bill 
Gates did what America is supposed to be about--he built a good 
``better'' mouse trap. It sold. Microsoft thrived. This is not and 
never was about a monolopy. It is about sour grapes and whining by 
companies whose leaders choose not to do what Gates did, coupled 
with a President whose only interest was himself and his personal 
interests. Clinton used his position in ways it never should have 
been used and in ways that should not have been allowed.
    What Bill Gates did with Microsoft is supposed to be what 
America is about. But apparently this is no longer true. Instead of 
being able to enjoy the fruits of his efforts, he was pounced on by, 
what appears to be, a very oppressive Federal Governemnt. This 
entire trial is or should be an affront to all Americans.
    It happened because of greed and a total unwillingness of anyone 
in Congress or the Justice Department to say, no this is wrong. But 
no one did and it happened it. Now it is definitely time to say 
enough, this needs to and must stop now!
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
Sincerely,
Susan Whitaker



MTC-00014360

From: Buttars
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:39pm
Subject: Settlement
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
    Congratulations on a well negotiated settlement for the 
Microsoft company. Their competitors have now realized some 
assistance in the market and Microsoft understands their boundaries. 
Please accept this email as a letter of support for the settlement. 
America is ready for new technology and innovation.
    Hopefully, closure of this lawsuit will start that process.
    Sincerely,
    Senator D. Chris Buttars
    Utah State Senate



MTC-00014361

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:47pm
Subject: Microsoft
Donald G. Talbot
7135 Evanston Street
Fayetteville, NC 28314-1277
910-867-7776
January 21, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I have been a longtime watcher of the Microsoft case and have e-
mailed my elected officials with the position that the case was not 
in the best interest of the taxpayers in this country. I also 
believed it showed a strong disregard for the principle that 
government should try its best not to interfere with the workings of 
business, whether small or large. Because of Microsoft, computers 
and software are inexpensive and available to the common user at 
home. We need to give Microsoft credit, not disdain for what they 
have done good for the computer user.
    But today, there is a settlement on the table between the 
Department of Justice, Microsoft and nine attorneys general. I 
believe that in the interest of moving this case along that Judge 
Kollar-Kotelly will approve the settlement. It will mean changes at 
Microsoft, no doubt, with an independent group having the power to 
audit future actions of the giant software company. While such 
activity is not to my liking personally, I feel that it is worth it 
to move this case out of court.
    As a former member of the Fayetteville City Council, North 
Carolina, I have seen what damage that lawsuits and potential 
lawsuits can do to the ongoing process of good government. They are 
often expensive for the city and occupy the time of employees and 
attorneys when eventually the suits are settled anyway--but so much 
farther down the road.
    Thank you for allowing me to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Don Talbot



MTC-00014362

From: Charles Barbour
To: Microsoft(u)atr(u)usdoj
Date: 1/21/02  4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles W. Barbour
900 E Harrison Avenue, Apt. A-6
Pomona, CA 91767
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my support of the 
Microsoft settlement. Although I believe that the antitrust case was 
without merit, I am pleased to finally see resolution in the case. 
The federal government should not have the right to meddle with 
private enterprise, especially when that enterprise has so hugely 
benefited a developing industry while well serving consumer's 
interests and where monopolistic behavior has not existed.
    Given these sentiments, I believe that the settlement is in the 
best interests of the economy and the IT industry, as it will allow 
Microsoft to return full focus to its business. Microsoft has agreed 
to the formation of a technical review board. This board will have 
the position of ensuring Microsoft's compliance wit the terms of the 
agreement.
    Obviously Microsoft has made significant concessions in an 
attempt to resolve this issue. I would hope that the Dept. of 
Justice would enact the settlement at the end of January.
    Sincerely,
    Charles W. Barbour



MTC-00014363

From: Jerry Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:59pm
Subject: Micrsoft law suit
    You have in my opinion as an investor, America would have been 
much better served if you had never started your suit against 
Microsoft. You should forget Microsoft and do something useful. Your 
suit wasn't helpful at all, fact is, you cost me et al a lot of 
money.
    Jerry Klein
    Box 128
    Spring Green, Wisconsin 53588
    608-588-7889



MTC-00014364

From: Wendy G. Gretzinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Agreement
    The attached was faxed to Attorney General John Ashcroft.
January 15, 2002
Attomey General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen, I am writing to ask the Justice 
department to accept the recent settlement with Microsoft. After all 
the time and money spent on this drawn out federal lawsuit, it is 
time to accept this compromise.
    The action taken against Microsoft has been heavy-handed and 
will not improve the quality or cost of products of technology. To 
attempt to break up a company that

[[Page 25928]]

manufactures so many widely used computer software products would be 
a disservice to the general public. People have preferred the 
Company and its products over other market products. Competitors 
either need to become innovators like Microsoft, or get out of the 
business. Although I did not support the idea of a lawsuit from the 
start, I do think this settlement should appease the critics and is 
a fair agreement for ensuring future competition. Microsoft has 
agreed on many fronts to not operate by retaliation against those 
who offer competitive products while opening their own technology to 
licensing opportunities. In some cases Microsoft will be delivering 
more than the government has requested.
    As an interested citizen, I would hope the Justice Department 
would do the right thing. Please accept this good faith agreement 
between Microsoft and the government after the 60-day public comment 
period. Your consideration is appreciated.
    Sincerely,
    Wendy Gretzinger



MTC-00014365

From: erick senkmajer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  4:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    So your solution in the Microsoft settlement is to make the 
product even MORE ubiquitous by putting the software and related 
hardware into the only place where non-WinIntel Machines have a 
stronghold--education? Do you have stock in Microsoft or are you 
selling short on Mac shares? Sheesh.
    I don't think you should EVER have gotten involved. I NEVER 
thought it was a good idea, no matter how much I dislike Microsoft. 
Getting the feds involved is sure-fire prescription for double-
speak.
    Erick J. Senkmajer
    Charlotte, MI



MTC-00014367

From: Barbara Stepan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I do not think that there should be any more delay in the 
Microsoft Settlement. I do not think Microsoft should be punished to 
the point of inhibiting their freedom to inovate and give us good 
products at lower prices. They have always kept prices down and had 
the best products which is good for the public. I do not support 
those special interest companies that want to take away competition 
for their gain only. The public doesn't gain by that. We have a 
choice in what we buy and we choose Microsoft. Millions of stock 
holders choose Microsoft to help them survive in their retirement 
and old age. We can depend on them. The public doesn't need 
protection from Microsoft.
    We need protection from phone and cable companies where we do 
not have a choice! We are subject to price gouging, poor service and 
telemarketers who don't give their numbers so we can call back and 
ask them to take our name off their list if we are not interested. 
That is only fair. They even pester us with computer calls and no 
one is there when you answer. We have to pay for them to use our 
phone service under unfair advantage. How popular a congressman 
would be if he would stop this unfair practice. Every one hates the 
constant interuption of these unknown telemarketers. Give us an 
equal advantage since we pay the phone bill, make them give their 
name and phone numbers. It should be against the law to call us if 
we have already called them and asked to be taken off their calling 
list.
    Thank you.
    Best Regards,
    Barbara Stepan
    Ph: 425-820-6363
    Fax: 425-820-7031
    EMAIL: [email protected]



MTC-00014368

From: EXT-Drew, Sean
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Note: All views expressed herein are my own and not necessarily 
representative of Adecco or Boeing. This email was written on my own 
time and not billed to Boeing.
    After reviewing the settlement, I am absolutely flabbergasted at 
how little is being done to rectify the current situation. The suit 
found unanimously that Microsoft is and does operate as a monopoly. 
What is being done to break up the monopoly? Nothing! While there 
are some minor restrictions placed on Microsoft, those restrictions 
are of little or no consequence or, worse, empower Microsoft to be 
even more ruthless than it has in the past. How many more software 
companies must die before we act? We would have been better off 
without this suit, at least Microsoft had the fear of the DOJ 
potentially affecting its operations. Now Microsoft will know it is 
untouchable.
    It appears that the only winner in the Microsoft antitrust case 
is Microsoft, who, quite ironically, is the defendent. Microsoft 
emerges as a clear winner:
    *Microsoft can now terminate it's agreement to ship Windows to 
any OEM after just sending the OEM two letters for allegedly 
violating Microsoft agreements. The OEM will have no recourse. 
Allegations may be real or fabricated as the OEM has no recourse 
(section III--A).
    *Microsoft can still offer predatory pricing on the base OS to 
promote Microsoft products (Section III--B, bullet 3). The fact that 
Microsoft has to offer the same predatory pricing offer to all OEMs 
is a tragic comedy. What good is predatory pricing unless offered to 
all major channels?
    *Microsoft can delay access to the Windows API until after the 
last beta (section III--D). It is a simple matter to have the last 
beta end right before release, thus disallowing any competition.
    *The very idea that Microsoft cannot alter OEM configuration for 
14 days and can then thereafter nag the user to death until they 
agree to switch back to Microsoft products is at best a cruel trick 
to users (section III--H, bullet 3). Additionally, the add/remove 
seems only to apply to removing the icons in major menus, as opposed 
to actually removing the Microsoft software (section III--H, bullet 
1).
    *The Technical Committee (secion IV--B) does not appear to allow 
for any real enforcement (in my opinion). Additionally, what are 
they going to enforce, the broad new anti-competitive powers given 
to Microsoft?
    *While I am not a legal whiz, it seems that the whole document 
does not preclude Microsoft from bundling whatever it wants into the 
base operating system (as it did with Internet Explorer to the 
detriment of other browsers).
    Why in the world is this monopoly not being broken up into 
multiple companies (2 at the least)? Why are the Microsoft anti-
competitive practices being sanctioned and not prohibited? Why is 
the settlement for a such a short time (five years), or is that just 
to limit all the new anti-competitive powers bequethed to Microsoft?
    The big losers in this case are the user (lack of choice), the 
US software industry (lack of innovation, fear of Microsoft 
reprisals) and the DOJ (by delivering the weakest judgement 
conceivable which weakens confidence in the DOJ).
    Note: All views expressed herein are my own and not necessarily 
representative of Adecco or Boeing. This email was written on my own 
time and not billed to Boeing.
    Sean ``Crash'' Drew
    DCAC/MRM Application Integration
    voice: (425) 965-6791 fax: (425) 965-6766
    pgr: (206) 989-7941 mail: [email protected]
    Are bee keepers running a sting operation?



MTC-00014369

From: GK
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I use Microsoft Windows and do not feel harmed by the so-called 
``Monopoly ``. . . .If you think about it, there has to be a 
``monopoly'' so that computers can talk to each other.
    Janet Reno started this lawsuit for political reasons. I hope 
that you will end it now.
    Also, I think that it is wrong that the various States are 
getting on the bandwagon now to bleed Microsoft for the benefit of 
politicians and lawyers. Also, this lawsuit was for the benefit of 
Sun Microsystems and other big companies who donated money to the 
Clinton administration.
    This is a free country. . . you should not try to destroy 
American Business.
    If you must do something in the Cartel area, why don't you try 
going after OPEC and their subsidiaries in the country who are 
selling gasoline.
    George Kurzon
    Peterborough, N.H. 03458
    603 924 7600



MTC-00014370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to say that I used to be a fan of the Macintosh computer 
and its operating system. I have since found out that the MS OS is 
just as good as Mac OS and I have been changing over for about two 
years. I don't

[[Page 25929]]

think it is right for the government to tell me what to use on my 
computer for software. Microsoft is a fantastic company that earns 
its money and should be allowed to stay in business doing whatever 
it can to benefit us, the consumers of computer products.
    Jack Crawford
    Silver Spring MD 20906
    301-946-3984(H)
    301-902-8702 (W)



MTC-00014371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:27pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    After reviewing the documents related to the Microsoft 
settlement, it is my opinion that the judgment lacks sufficient 
punitive damages against Microsoft and stops short of truly ensuring 
future violations of a similar nature.
    Microsoft shows no signs of changing its ways and from some 
accounts is working on ways to better cover up future communications 
that could possibly implicate them at a future date.
    Although not part of the document set I reviewed, as it relates 
to this settlement, I am also distressed to hear the news media 
mentioning Microsoft reparations including the distribution of 
Microsoft products, or Microsoft operating system friendly products, 
distributed free of charge to any parties, public or private, such 
as public schools. I view this as a reward not punishment.



MTC-00014372

From: Michael Overton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:29pm
Subject: Proposed Antitrust Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a computer technician who has worked on computers since prior 
to the release of Windows 95, I urge the Department of Justice to 
reconsider the terms of this settlement in one primary area. This 
area concerns the compliance of Microsoft and the future bundling of 
programs and operating systems.
    Under the upheld ruling of the anti-trust trial, Microsoft was 
declared a monopoly. They were found to be in violation of the law 
by illegally leveraging their operating system monopoly to promote 
other programs and eliminate competition. They made previous 
agreements to not conduct such actions, and consistently violated 
those agreements.
    There must be a strong mechanism to prevent such actions in the 
future. There must be strong mechanisms to maintain competition in 
the marketplace, or there will be no marketplace. The computer 
market has been a market of explosive change and progression 
precisely because there has been so much competition in the past, 
but we are watching this competition rapidly erode into nothing.
    Socialist systems and history both show the fundamental 
inability of a large monopoly to operate in the best interests of 
the economy and the consumer. The anti-trust laws of this nation 
were created to address this problem, and we risk having to re-learn 
what previous generations learned for us.
    Please examine the past record of Microsoft in this area, and 
resolve this issue; not in the best interest of one corporation, or 
the short-term expediency of the government, but in the interest of 
preserving a robust and competitive marketplace.
    Michael Overton
    2500 E. Saginaw Ave
    Apartment 13
    Lansing, MI 48912



MTC-00014373

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please leave Microsoft alone! The lawsuit was political 
harassment in the first place by the Clinton Administration and it 
is time to drop any further persecution of Microsoft.
    Brian Fox



MTC-00014374

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge:
    As the wife of a high-tech executive--and as someone who myself 
has been involved in the industry for years--it is clear to me that 
PFJ that the DOJ is proposing is ludicrous. Why should we trust a 
company that has been repeatedly convicted of abusing its monopoly 
position?
    I ask you to look very, very carefully at the PFJ and at the 
findings of all the courts that have reviewed this case to date. I 
think you will find that the PFJ is completely inadequate in the 
face of the consistent findings of the trial courts. . . and the 
consistent pattern of abuse that MS has clearly demonstrated over 
the past 20 years.
    Sincerely,
    Marina Slayton
    1242 Greenwood Ave
    Palo Alto, CA
    94301



MTC-00014375

From: Peggy Powers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Settle it without any more litigation.



MTC-00014376

From: Lee Wagstaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:34pm
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-00014377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rohi Puri
8514 Magnolia Drive
Lanham, MD 20706
January 21, 2002
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Attorney General:
    As a concerned citizen of this great nation, I am writing to 
give my support to the recent settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft. This case against Microsoft has gone on 
far too long, and needs to end immediately. I use Microsoft products 
every day at work, and I rely on their reliability. Breaking the 
company up would compromise the integrity of their products, 
resulting in down-time at my job.
    After reviewing the terms of the settlement, I find them to be 
amply fair and reasonable. 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 programs that compete with programs included 
within

[[Page 25930]]

Windows. Also, the company has agreed not to retaliate against 
computer makers who ship software that competes with anything in the 
Windows OS.
    As you can see, Microsoft will not be getting a ``sweetheart 
deal'' by agreeing to this settlement. The government should accept 
the settlement that was reached, and move onto other matters like 
the Enron fiasco and terrorist threats.
    Sincerely,
    Rohi Puri



MTC-00014378

From: Paul Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:58pm
Subject: Attorney General Letter
    The letter went out as an email the same day you sent the draft 
to me. I did not find it necessary to change any of the letter--it 
was well written.
    Sincerely
    Paul Evans



MTC-00014379

From: Bob Lindinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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 and Redhat. 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 personal 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 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 it'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 have ever seen. I also think 
Larry Ellison should get a life and stop worrying about his relative 
worth compared to Bill Gates.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J. Lindinger
    2339 W. Lydius Street
    Schenectady, NY 12306
    PS
    I sent this e-mail before but neglected to include my full 
mailing address. I want to make sure that government regulators 
receive and acknowledge my advocacy for Microsoft and my desire to 
have this destructive antitrust case against the company settled as 
quickly as possible. Please stop wasting taxpayers money.
    CC: Lucky,[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014380

From: Rawsthorne, James
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  6:06pm
Subject: Micorsoft settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I find the proposed DOJ settlement to be not in the best 
interests of the people of the US. MS, as a proven monopoly has 
abused it's position and nothing in the current settlement addresses 
this. MS has continued to exert monopolistic influence in a variety 
of fields including streaming media, standards development, and web 
technologies.
    Please revisit the issue for a settlement that actually adresses 
MS's overbearing influence on the market.
    thanks,
    James Rawsthorne
    [email protected]



MTC-00014381

From: arlene f harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:10pm
Subject: settlement
7002 Meadowdale Beach Road
Edmonds, Washington 98026
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement that was reached in November. I am a believer 
of free enterprise and would like to see the government allow 
Microsoft to prosper due to hard work. I support the settlement and 
am anxious to see this dispute resolved.
    Microsoft has gone from a fledgling company to a giant 
enterprise through talent and hard work. This combination can only 
benefit the economy and consumers. This settlement will benefit the 
technology industry by granting more rights to computer makers to 
configure Windows to promote non-Microsoft software programs that 
compete wit programs included within Windows. Microsoft has also 
agreed to disclose more information with other companies about 
certain internal interfaces in Windows.
    This settlement will benefit everyone. Ending this litigation 
will benefit everyone. Please do your part.
    Sincerely,
    Arlene Harrison



MTC-00014382

From: Larry Campbell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software engineer who has worked in the computer industry 
for over twenty-five years. I have worked for large corporations 
(Digital, IBM) and small (I founded my own software company and ran 
it for ten years). I currently work for Akamai Technologies, an 
Internet content delivery service, but I write in my personal 
capacity and not as a representative of Akamai.

[[Page 25931]]

    It has long been obvious to me and all of my colleagues that 
Microsoft is a predatory and dangerous monopolist who stifles 
innovation and competition in the industry. Because of Microsoft's 
total dominance of the industry, consumers have very little choice 
in not one, but many different product areas:
    Operating systems: Microsoft Windows completely dominates this 
market.
    Word processors: Microsoft Word completely dominates this 
market.
    Spreadsheets: Microsoft Excel completely dominates this market.
    Presentation software: Microsoft PowerPoint completely dominates 
this market.
    Project management software: Microsoft Project completely 
dominates this market.
    In these five distinct and separate product areas, there is no 
effective competition AT ALL because Microsoft has destroyed its 
competitors. Add to this Microsoft's enormous hoard of cash, and it 
is obvious that it would be suicide for any business to attempt to 
dislodge Microsoft in any of these categories. No matter how good 
your product, you'd run out of cash long before Microsoft would. In 
business, money is ammunition and it's not much of an exaggeration 
to say that Microsoft has it all.
    Microsoft did not achieve this position because their products 
are superior. The industry graveyard is littered with the bones of 
competitive products, many of which were superior to Microsoft's at 
various points in time. But Microsoft, through its initial monopoly 
in PC operating systems and consequent guaranteed cash flow, has 
been able to subsidize tremendous marketing and development efforts 
devoted to crushing any and all competition.
    It is widely accepted in the industry that the Microsoft culture 
is devoted, not to technical excellence, nor to serving customers, 
but rather to targeting a market segment and completely capturing it 
by crushing the competition. It is a competitive culture devoted to 
winning for winning's sake. It's a commonplace often heard from 
those who have been involved in negotiations with Microsoft that at 
Microsoft there's no such thing as ``win-win''; there is only ``win, 
you lose''.
    Even if Microsoft were not in the habit of engaging in predatory 
and ruthless and questionable business dealings, their enormous cash 
hoard and total dominance of the desktop computing market would make 
them dangerous.
    In my opinion, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement is nothing 
more than a light slap on the wrist for Microsoft. The Judgement 
merely states that Microsoft should stop engaging in some of the 
anti-competitive behaviors that have gotten them to where they are 
today. May I point out what should be obvious? That it's too late! 
They have won. They dominate the industry. They are widely feared. 
It costs them nothing to agree to the Judgement because they no 
longer need to engage in these behaviors.
    It is my firm view that the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
will have little or no long-term effect, and that Microsoft will 
continue to dominate the industry, stifle competition and 
innovation, and use their existing monopolies to allow them to gain 
new monopolies in new markets. An effective response to Microsoft 
must address these two points, which the current Judgement fails to 
do:
    (1) It must punish them severely enough so as to discourage 
others from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and
    (2) It must prevent them from extending their unlawfully-
obtained dominance and strength from unfairly taking control of 
future markets.
    The current judgement does neither. I am not an anti-trust 
lawyer and so I am not familiar with all of the remedies that might 
be possible, but I believe that to be effective the remedy must 
include elements of the following:
    (1) Microsoft must be split into at least three independent 
entities (operating systems, applications, services)
    (2) Those Microsoft senior executives responsible for their past 
behavior must be punished personally, with either jail time or huge 
fines
    (3) The same senior executives must be compelled to choose, 
after the breakup, which (if any) of the new companies they will be 
associated with and must not be permitted to be associated with more 
than one of them.
    You know the old saying ``crime does not pay''? If the current 
Judgement stands as the government's last gasp in this matter, we'll 
have to change it to ``crime does pay''. Microsoft has shown us the 
way.
    Larry Campbell
    452 Boylston Street
    Brookline, Mass. 02445
    [email protected]



MTC-00014383

From: Dick Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:22pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    For the record, I am against any distribution of Microsoft 
products as part of any settlement of the anti-trust case. Such a 
distribution could only be considered a reward to the existing 
monopoly. Leave the issue of children and schools out of it; how can 
competitors win against ``free'' software/hardware.
    The suggested additional considerations put forth by the State 
AG's should be carefully evaluated for adoption, as they were put 
forth without any perceived political influence that Microsoft may 
have had on the U.S. government through contributions and economic 
threats.
    Dick Erickson
    P. O. Box 88
    Klawock, AK 99925
    CC:microsoftsettlement@ alexbrubaker.com@inetgw



MTC-00014384

From: Randy Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--I am not in favor, the penalties are 
not sufficient
    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    I am not in favor of the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case. Among other things, I believe that the penalties are 
insufficient. Microsoft has developed a monopoly position in the 
software market, and it has accomplished some of this using methods 
that violate the antitrust laws or fair business practices.
    Companies have gone out-of-business or been severely hurt by 
their tactics, and other companies have never started.
    The penalties against Microsoft must be strong enough to reverse 
this trend in the industry, to give other companies or initiatives a 
chance to survive without fear of being driven out of business by 
unfair Microsoft tactics. And, as in the case of civil rights, 
redress must be made for past wrongs.
    I do not believe the proposed penalties are anywhere near 
sufficient, and will, in fact, allow Microsoft to perpetuate and 
expand their monopoly position.
    Microsoft should not be allowed to pay their penalty by 
supplying copies of their own software--this is like giving them a 
license to print money--they can produce copies of their software at 
a very low marginal cost compared to the retail ``value''.
    In addition, allowing them to put this software in schools where 
it exposes the next generation to the current ubiquitousness of 
Microsoft software is like giving them free advertising to 
perpetuate their monopoly.
    The penalty should be in terms of hard cash, or real hardware 
purchased from non-related companies, with no chance of associated 
sweetheart deals. In fact, the hardware should only be supplied 
without an installed operating system, or with a non-Microsoft 
operating system, by a company (or companies) that make a commitment 
to make the same products (without an installed operating system) 
available for sale to the general public.
    Furthermore, the proposed amount of the fine, $1.1 billion 
dollars, is a pittance for a company where one owner of the company 
has amassed a fortune approaching $50 billion dollars, some as a 
result of the unfair business practices.
    Some people might be anxious to settle this case quickly, partly 
as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. I would like to see 
it settled quickly also, but not at the expense of failing to 
accomplish the objectives of the case, or providing adequate 
penalties to redress the wrongs that have occurred and make a more 
competitive climate in the industry.
    I believe our government, country, and people are strong--we can 
multitask--this case can be prosecuted to the extent necessary 
without diluting the effort to stop terrorism.
    Sincerely,
    Randolph H. Kramer



MTC-00014385

From: Stan Rostas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I specifically and our office generally are OS agnostic. What we 
want is a computer and OS that utilize and imbed open standards so 
that no matter which hardware or OS we choose to use can co-exist 
with other hardware or OS. Presently this is not

[[Page 25932]]

the case with any of the OS's available, though Microsoft has set 
the standard for hindrance of this ideal. This settlement will allow 
Microsoft to continue to impose proprietary software code that will 
block entry by others in the software and hardware areas. Of course 
others could adopt these proprietary software code but Microsoft 
would then continue to prohibit any innovation that it would not see 
benefit its dominance of the market. The present settlement has 
acquiesced to the demands of Microsoft and not of the people of the 
United States allowing with little to no penalty for this 
corporation to continue on with the charade which will allow them to 
eventually become the only alternative making it impossible without 
great cost and us economic impact to resolve. It is as if we have 
given GM the sole rights to the combustion engine so that all cars 
would be powered by what they conceived with only the others 
providing the different style exteriors. GM could then hold these 
motors from anyone who would not use new items that only it could 
provide.
    Moving a car though is not nearly as hard to overcome as the 
base OS of a computer since it interacts with all the hardware 
devices of a computer. I hope the representatives of we the people 
reconsider the resolution and require Microsoft to open up their OS 
to some form of non-proprietary standards.
    Thanks
    Stanley Paul Rostas
    Shook
    2151 Hawkins Street
    Suite 400
    Charlotte, NC
    T.704.377.0661 E.105
    F.704.377.0953
    M.704.517.0749
    http: //www.shookdesign.com



MTC-00014386

From: Andrew F Grisham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
From: Andrew F. Grisham
8713 Golden Gardens Dr. N.W.
Seattle, Washington 98117-3942
[email protected]
(206) 783-5037
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The case has been going 
on long enough and it is time to move on. The terms of the 
settlement are fair and the government should accept them.
    The antitrust case against Microsoft has been going on for over 
three years now. It is time to put it to rest. Microsoft has agreed 
to many concessions to reach the settlement. They even agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit, simply for the sake of putting the 
issue behind them. For instance they have agreed to design future 
Windows? versions s as to make it easier for competitors to promote 
their own products. They have also agreed to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows so as t make it easier for 
software developers to promote their own products. These concessions 
and more make up the basis for the settlement.
    It is time that the government let Microsoft and the technology 
industry move forward. The only way to move forward is to put the 
issue in the past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew F. Grisham



MTC-00014387

From: Chris Carver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
1646 Harvey Road
Fruit Heights, UT 84037
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For the past three years, the Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice have been involved in an antitrust case of tremendous 
proportions. Late last year, after lengthy negotiations supervised 
by a court-appointed mediator, a settlement was reached. The 
settlement is currently under review, and Microsoft's opponents are 
taking advantage of this period to undermine it. I believe it will 
be to the disadvantage of the American public if this case is not 
settled soon and on just terms.
    One problem I have with the states who did not agree to the 
settlement is that it seems like they want to make Microsoft suffer 
unfair consequences. The anti-competitive practices being referred 
to by the dissenting state AG's occurred before Microsoft had been 
declared a Monopoly. Microsoft's conduct would not be considered 
illegal if MS had not been declared a monopoly. But this was post 
facto. It seems entirely unfair to expect MS to compete with other 
businesses under the rules governing Monopolies before they had been 
declared as such.
    I believe the terms of the current settlement are fair and that 
it would be prudent to cease litigation and take the opportunity to 
settle now. No further action is necessary on the federal level, and 
it is in the best interest of the state, the economy, and the 
consumer to move on. Please give your support to the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Carver



MTC-00014388

From: Brent Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:37pm
Subject: To Renata Hesse
    Dear Renata Hesse,
    Over the past 18 months I have watched the Microsoft antitrust 
lawsuit with great unhappiness at the way our national dollars were 
being spent. The Microsoft competitors were able to gather enough 
support to raise some concerns about the Microsoft business and use 
tax dollars to resolve their problems. It is now time to close the 
issue and move forward.
    I send this letter to support the settlement that has been 
negotiated. There are compromises and parameters established in the 
settlement that should satisfy the information technology industry 
and allow them to move forward with their marketing strategies. I 
urge your acceptance of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Brent Parker, Representative
    Utah House of Representatives
    District #5



MTC-00014389

From: Andrew F Grisham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  6:45pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
From: Marilyn J. Grisham
8713 Golden Gardens Dr. N.W.
Seattle, Washington 98117-3942
(206) 783-5037
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 17, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. The case has been going 
on long enough and it is time to move on. The terms of the 
settlement are fair and the government should accept them.
    The antitrust case against Microsoft has been going on for over 
three years now. It is time to put it to rest. Microsoft has agreed 
to many concessions to reach the settlement. They even agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit, simply for the sake of putting the 
issue behind them. For instance they have agreed to design future 
Windows? versions s as to make it easier for competitors to promote 
their own products. They have also agreed to grant computer makers 
broad new rights to configure Windows so as t make it easier for 
software developers to promote their own products. These concessions 
and more make up the basis for the settlement.
    It is time that the government let Microsoft and the technology 
industry move forward. The only way to move forward is to put the 
issue in the past. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Marilyn J. Grisham



MTC-00014390

From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the blood-sniffing hyena states: Take the MSFT settlement 
offer, shut up and go home.
    To the DoJ, its ego-trip prosecuters, the harassing, incompetent 
courts, and to the whining chorus of aggrieved MSFT competitors: 
close the books in this case, pack up and go home.

[[Page 25933]]

    OPHTH1



MTC-00014391

From: John Brugger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:07pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    the offer under consideration seems to me to be fair to all 
parties and settlement will avoid further confusion and avoid more 
lengthy arguments and annoying and expensive delays.
    John A. Brugger



MTC-00014392

From: Steve Buckstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Statement Re Microsoft Settlement:
    As a personal and corporate consumer of Microsoft products, 
please accept this message as my support for the Department of 
Justice to settle your case against Microsoft as quickly as 
possible. I have never felt harmed by Microsoft's business 
practices. I do not believe that consumers in general have been 
harmed by Microsoft's business practices. In fact, on balance I 
believe consumers have greatly benefited from Microsoft's innovation 
and creativity.
    The sooner both Microsoft and its competitors can get this case 
behind them, the quicker they can turn their full attention to 
developing and marketing innovative products at competitive prices.
    Oregonians have been hit harder by the current recession than 
most Americans. Oregon currently has the highest unemployment rate 
in the nation. I and countless thousands of other Oregon investors 
own shares of Microsoft either directly or indirectly through mutual 
funds and retirement accounts. The sooner the Department of Justice 
case against Microsoft is settled, the sooner market uncertainty 
around its shares will subside. This can only be good for Oregon's 
faltering economy. Investors who see the risk in their portfolios 
decline are more likely to engage in new economic activity, put more 
people to work, etc.
    Thank you for considering my remarks in regard to the Microsoft 
case.
    Steve Buckstein, President*
    Cascade Policy Institute
    813 SW Alder, Suite 450
    Portland, Oregon 97205
    (503) 242-0900
    *This statement represents my personal views, not necessarily 
the views of my organization.



MTC-00014393

From: John McLeod
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement from Microsoft seems more like an 
ingenious marketing plan than a punishment. With this plan, they are 
allowed to invest in a market (Education) to guarantee later sales. 
This is no more than a company giving a customer a free razor, 
knowing full well that he can only buy the blades from them. By 
pushing more Microsoft desktop and server products in, it forces the 
schools to move farther away from Microsoft's competitors (Primarily 
Apple, Linux and Netware). As part of my job, I administer PC's, 
Macs and Servers. Whether it's Licensing, maintenance or day to day 
operation and administration, Microsoft based units cost us more and 
are more difficult and more expensive to maintain. All types of 
computers break or have problems, regardless of brand. The 
difference is, what does it take to fix or maintain them. With 
Microsoft based operating systems, Maintenance and Repairs are 
normally done by a larger IT Staff instead of the user or teacher. 
This is because an average user will never have the knowledge to 
perform the troubleshooting required. This settlement may cost the 
schools much more in maintenance and upgrades down the road than 
they could ever budget. This is coupled with the fact that Microsoft 
is constantly pushing its users to upgrade for the sole reason that 
maybe the new system will actually work. How many upgrades will 
schools (and their taxpayers) have to suffer through before they 
have stable system in the classroom? No one will ever know. It's 
never happened before with a Microsoft-based network.
    John McLeod
    [email protected]



MTC-00014394

From: Charles Bellina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:17pm
Subject: HAS YOUR OPINION BEEN COUNTED.H
Attorney General's Office;
    I come down on the side of MICROSOFT and ask to that the company 
be cleared of all charges.
    Charles Bellina



MTC-00014395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Download NeoPlanet at http://www.neoplanet.com
707 Marlborough Court
Hinesville, GA 31313-5540
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    In my humble opinion, a lawsuit of this magnitude gives the 
appearance of punishing a company for being successful. Microsoft is 
a leader that has set the standard for the industry. Is it fair to 
punish them for their competitors'' inability to keep up? If these 
competitors were able to make better products, don't you think they 
would? This long, drawn-out, three-year lawsuit has accomplished 
nothing except damage the economy and the industry by limiting 
Microsoft's ability to focus all their time and effort in creating 
new and better products. This case has also done much to damage the 
confidence of the average American in the government and its 
policies. ]t seems that the message being sent to the public is that 
is you work hard and produce a great product; the government will 
step in and punish you for being successful. Rather than continue to 
defend themselves, Microsoft just wants to end the lawsuit, even at 
the cost of big concessions. So much so, they have agreed to 
restrictions that extend to items that were not even at issue in the 
lawsuit. They have agreed to allow computer makers to remove (or 
remove easy access to) Windows features such as Internet Explorer 
and Windows Media Player, and allow easier installation of and 
access to non-Microsoft alternatives. In addition, Microsoft has 
made it easier for competitors by making its intellectual properties 
and protocols more readily available. It has become so simple for 
consumers to use other browsers and media players that it makes me 
pause and wonder if the consumers are the one complaining, or is it 
the other computer companies? Is it simply a matter of politics? 
Have politics sold out to computer companies who don't stand a 
chance in the marketplace because of their lack of vision and 
inability to ``build a better mouse trap''? Does it all boil down to 
which members of the government can be bought? It's unreasonable to 
reject the settlement to pursue the case further for even more 
concessions, when Microsoft's concessions are quite tough as it is. 
I appreciate this avenue of public expression and hope that my views 
on this matter will aid in the prompt resolution of this matter. It 
would be good to know if your office truly values the input of the 
public.
    Sincerely,
    Pam Mitchum RPh



MTC-00014396

From: ROBERTSON, JUAN
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  7:35pm
Subject: This new PASSPORT requirement imposed unilaterally by 
Microsoft is necessary
    This new PASSPORT requirement imposed unilaterally by Microsoft 
is necessary to recieve updates to correct defects in software that 
has been sold to me and represented as fit for use.
    In passport, I am required to provide additional information 
about myself, with no opportunity to ask Microsoft to keep my 
information confidential. This is an additional ``taking'', a 
unilateral expost sale requirement in order to receive something 
already promised to me. I find that abusive.
    Juan P. Robertson PhD
    21937 7th Avenue South #216
    Des Moines, Washington 98198



MTC-00014397

From: pb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I hereby voice my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. It will have the opposite effect intended. It will help 
Microsoft have even a more of a monopoly, by taking away education 
business from Apple. Furthermore, it does little to thwart 
Microsoft's continued monopolistic practices. What really needs to 
be done is to

[[Page 25934]]

completely break-up the company-- isolating the operating system 
from the rest of their software products.
    Thanks for listening.
    Sincerly,
    Mr. Philip



MTC-00014398

From: Jeff Humberson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear District Court Judge,
    Microsoft is company that competes in a free market. I made the 
choice to buy their products. Microsoft is successful because they 
currently make the best product on the market. This does not mean 
that they will always be this successful. If another company comes 
out with a better product people will buy it. Remember how powerful 
IBM used to be.
    Don't punish Microsoft's success; you will only be lowering the 
bar for Microsoft's competitors and hurting the consumer. This 
lawsuit is immoral and I order you to stop it.
    Jeff W. Humberson, DDS
    Citizen, State of New Mexico, USA



MTC-00014400

From: Bob McDermott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement



MTC-00014401

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7 52pm
Subject: USAGYARBROUGH--JOE--1078--0118.DOC
5568 Matt Aaron Lane Birmingham, Alabama 35215
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I write today to give my support to the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. This 
settlement is fair for all parties involved, and the remaining 
states should settle instead of pursuing litigation against 
Microsoft. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows to the twenty 
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including 
price. These are heavy hitters of the IT industry, and they will now 
be able to collectively leverage an extreme amount of power against 
Microsoft. Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows.
    I urge that no further action be taken against Microsoft on the 
federal level, and the settlement be accepted by the Justice 
Department. This settlement is strong enough for any reasonable 
person.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Yarbrough
    Cc: Representative Spencer Bachus



MTC-00014402

From: Cameron Quinn Lauseng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  7:52pm
Subject: Settlement Problems
    I am sorely dissappointed with our Justice Department for 
obvious lack of judgement in creating such a soft and ineffectual 
settlement against Microsoft. This settlement has little more effect 
than the previously issued injuction against Microsoft, which they 
flagerantly violated. This current settlement does nothing to 
address this serious defiance of the American Justice system, does 
not address the demonstrated contempt of the American Justice 
System, and does nothing to remedy the half decade of damage to the 
American public that Microsoft's dramatically illegal behaviour 
caused.
    Furthermore, because this settlement fails to declare remedy for 
these past serious abuses of our laws, it will prove to be no more 
capable of restraining Microsoft's behaviour. Indeed, it can be 
found that Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows XP, may 
already be in violation of the settlement, by requiring consumers to 
subscribe to Microsoft services on the internet in order to get full 
use of features of the software. I would consider this rather 
prejudiced against other middleware providers that already offer 
these services that Microsoft is requiring subscription to.
    I continue to be astonished at the short-sightedness of elements 
in our Justice system concerning this case. How can anybody 
seriously think that such a minor settlement will do anything to 
prevent future violations against the American public, considering 
past behaviour. Does the DOJ care nothing that Microsoft violated 
the previous consent decree within months of its issuance?
    I would also like to point out that the form of this settlement 
requires a rather expensive on-going enforcement by State and 
Federal agencies. This will prove to be dramatically expensive to 
the American taxpayers in the long run. Would not a firm and 
definitive remedy that provided an automatic mechanism of future 
competative operations (split up) prove to be much less expensive to 
the American people?
    With the enforcement mechanism currently provided for in this 
settlement, the American people can expect a protracted period of 
history of expensive court proceedings, remedies, judgements, 
filings, etc., and even an entire government agency just for the 
maintenance of this one settlement.
    Though Jackson's behaviour was deplorable, I can't see that the 
breakup judgement could be set aside so easily. This only proves 
that our judges are not blind to subjectivity. One spoke out, the 
other one who turned it around so quickly made just as loud a 
statement. There is no difference in the lack of objectivity of 
either of the judges involved.
    Cameron Lauseng
    Whitmore Lake, MI



MTC-00014403

From: Kyle Knohl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am a software engineer and a college student. I hope that by 
the time I have some experience and have gotten my degree that this 
monopoly of Microsoft's will no longer be what it is today. I look 
forward to a future in which I can create applications without fear 
of being pushed out of business because Microsoft does not like my 
application moving in on its turf. I have been putting off writing 
this letter for a long time. I have looked over the documents and 
talked to friends about the case. I tried to get others to write, 
but with little luck. One friend said he didn't want to be on 
Microsoft's blacklist. I think this is a little extreme, but I do 
not know what Microsoft is capable of.
    I wished to comment about this Microsoft case and the settlement 
that has been proposed by the Department of Justice. This settlement 
worries me. It seems to me that Microsoft has won a reprieve from 
any punishment for their actions. The lawyers for the people have 
not secured many safeguards for their clients. The group of three to 
oversee Microsoft's actions are half chosen by Microsoft. Even if 
these three people were able to find instances in which Microsoft 
had misbehaved, Microsoft seems to have cleverly organized the rules 
so that it dodges the main things that need to be changed. By 
getting the rules to exclude the Free Software movement, and 
safeguarding a few of their main business practices, they dodge much 
of the power of this group. Anyway, Microsoft seems to be changing 
its business model into one which dodges the constraints completely, 
a subscription based model.
    Microsoft has long been bullying different companies. The 
attorneys for the Department of Justice seem to feel that a weak 
settlement is better than none for a few years. I disagree, I feel 
that a weak settlement will only lead to another case beginning in a 
couple years. I also have gotten the feeling, the Department of 
Justice feels this case is harming the economy. Large controlling 
monopolies have never been good for our economy. The small 
innovaters are the strength behind capitalism. Microsoft stiffles 
these innovators.
    For a long time, I only saw one chance for this monopoly to end, 
and it had to do with the government punishing and limiting its 
actions. Two new chances have arisen: the European Commision and the 
Free Software movement. Neither seem ideal, but they can at least 
fight against the monopoly. Free Software can fight Microsoft, 
because Microsoft has nothing to use against it. Taken to an 
extreme, Free Software could put me out of a job. As time goes on 
though, Free Software seems more and more attractive. After years of 
seeing Microsoft control the software of the world, Free Software 
seems the only way in which people can have a choice again. This 
also allows me to create applications of my own without worrying 
about them being destroyed. The European Commission is the other 
chance. They have been investigating lately, and could impose a very 
large fine. A fine, while not enough, would stop Microsoft from 
pushing its way into markets by taking huge economic losses

[[Page 25935]]

on their products. Two good examples of this are the 400$ MSN 
subscription bonuses and the sale of the Xbox at a 100$ loss, though 
I have no way to verify the Xbox practice because I do not know 
Microsoft's price on the boxes. Microsoft has control over not just 
the desktop market but also the office suite market. This allows 
them to use either one to support the other. I hope that any 
agreement carries with it a publishing of the formats in the office 
suite so that compatible products can be made for other operating 
systems. I know many companies would like to switch to a Unix based 
desktop but cannot because the Microsoft Word document format is 
used as a collaboration tool with other companies. Since this format 
is so convoluted, it is extremely hard to find an application that 
is compatible enough to use in the business world. By using this 
fact, they can force unwanted operating systems from the desktop 
market.
    Part of the reason that I waited was to see how Microsoft would 
behave after the settlement was reached. Their behavior since then 
has worried me. It feels as if they are going back to their old 
behaviors. I hope that the conclusion of this case forces Microsoft 
to acknowledge their wrong-doing and apologize for their behavior. 
So far, it seems as if Microsoft still feels they have never done 
wrong. I see contempt for the world in their actions.
    Sincerely,
    Kyle Knohl



MTC-00014404

From: David Hobart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Nail Microsoft. They deserve it.
    David Hobart



MTC-00014405

From: fcbunk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:17pm
Subject: Letter
    We did mail a letter on Sunday, January 20,2002 From Clara Buknk



MTC-00014406

From: John J. Murphy, M.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I definitely object to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case. Microsoft was found guilty in court. Microsoft and it's 
chairman and lawyers lied time after time in court.
    What message is my government sending to me? Break the law, lie 
about it, and then the government will pretend no one was hurt and 
help me make more money by screwing other US citizens. Microsoft 
prevents me, a hard working American from using the very best 
software in the world. With their monopoly, they force me to buy 
buggy, defective software at an inflated price because the 
competition was forced from the market. Any settlement should not be 
about punishment so much as about preventing future monopolistic and 
anti competitive business practices.
    They must be strictly monitored by outside unbiased monitors. 
They must not be given the opportunity to break the law again. 
Strict regulation is in order. Monetary damages are also in order. 
Companies should not get to keep profits earned through illegal 
operations.
    Again, if I break the law, I am sure the government will seize 
my assets.
    Thank You
    John J. Murphy, M.D.
    Southwestern Research, Inc.
    435 North Bedford Drive
    Suite #216
    Beverly Hills, CA 90210
    1-310-858-7448



MTC-00014407

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Public Comment
    As I have followed the trial on TV and in the newspapers, it has 
been evident that the trial related to economic, philosophic and 
business interests. It did not relate to the typical PC owner that 
wants to buy a machine, turn it on and use it. Fact, there is no 
viable alternate operating system for the typical PC owner. If there 
was, people would be glad for the choice and Microsoft would not be 
a monopoly. Microsoft is being punished for having the only system 
available for the novice. The bells and whistles, like a browser, 
are part of what makes a PC salable to the average owner. If we had 
to buy a stripped OS and add all the features to make a PC work, 
there would be a lot less machines sitting in peoples houses. I 
appreciate and thank Microsoft for making my computer work. Look at 
what I am doing, I am sending an e-mail to the USDOJ. What a hoot! 
If all of these parties against Microsoft would make a competing OS 
for people like me, we would not be having this trial. I request 
that this action against Microsoft be dropped.



MTC-00014408

From: Micah Fitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:38pm
    To whom it may concern,
    I think that Microsoft was let offthe hook just because of 9.11. 
Microsoft dominates almost EVERYTHING in the industry, and it's not 
because their products are good quality. It's amazing that this case 
went on for so long, just to let Microsoft go easy because peoples 
minds were on Sept. 11.
    micah



MTC-00014409

From: Brenner Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  1:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5318 Avalon Drive
Murray, UT 84107-6220
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Yo wassup? Last November, following a six-month period of round-
the-clock negotiations supervised by a court-appointed mediator, 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice reached a settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust suit. The case has spent three long years in the 
federal courts, and now, as the settlement review period draws to a 
close, I fear the agreement will be thrown out. Nine states, 
including Utah, are currently seeking to overturn the settlement and 
to bring further litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. I do 
not feel that this is the appropriate course of action to take. Both 
the defendant and the plaintiffs are dealt with justly under the 
terms of the agreement, and I can find no reason for further action 
to be taken on the federal level.
    The settlement binds Microsoft to compliance with a broad range 
of restrictions and affirmative obligations, some of which extend to 
services and software that the Court of Appeals did not determine to 
be unlawful. Microsoft agreed to these terms in the interest of 
expediting case closure. Under the agreement, Microsoft is prevented 
from entering into any contracts that would require a third party to 
exclusively market or distribute Microsoft products. Moreover,
    Microsoft has agreed to furnish any party acting under the terms 
of the settlement with a license to applicable intellectual property 
rights to prevent infringement. The settlement thoroughly addresses 
all of the concerns brought to the attention of the Justice 
Department by the plaintiff states. I can only imagine that the 
motivation behind the litigation on the part of the plaintiffs is 
less than altruistic.
    The economy has suffered while the Microsoft and the various 
plaintiffs have been tied up in this court battle, and the American 
public has likewise felt the effects. The IT industry has stagnated 
as well, and no good can come of extended suit. I believe it is in 
the best public interest for the case to be settled, Mr. Ashcroft. I 
urge you to support the agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Brenner Adams



MTC-00014410

FROM: James Johansson
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/21/02 8:41pm
SUBJECT: Fwd: Attorney General John Ashcroft letter
    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    When you send out the letter, please do one of the following'' * 
Fax a signed copy of your letter to us at 1-800-651-2255; *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.

[[Page 25936]]

    The Attorney General's fax number and email are listed 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 informaion, please visit these websites: 
www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm.
    The letter follows:
    January 21, 2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    After three long years of litigation I was pleased to hear that 
Microsoft finally reached a settlement with the Department of 
Justice. In reviewing the terms of the settlement I believe that the 
terms of the settlement are very fair. Microsoft has made many 
concessions in the hopes of a quick resolution. The settlement will 
benefit consumers and member sof the IT industry. The settlement 
stipulations contain many concessions. Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose information regarding the interface and protocols within 
the Windows system. Microsoft will also license Windows at the same 
rate to the larger manufactureres of PCs. In addition, they agreed 
to the formation of a technical review board that will ensure these 
terms are followed.
    Microsoft is obviously willing to make concessions in order to 
resolve the issue. I support the setlement, and look forward to the 
end of the case.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Johansson
    21 mallard Drive West
    Berlin, MD 21811



MTC-00014411

From: Luther Moon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:47pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
11 Vendue Court
Simpsonville, SC 29681
Phone (864) 228-2550
Fax (864) 228-0678
Mobil (864) 901-4155
From the desk of Luther Moon
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to talk to you about my feelings of the 
Governments involvement with, and the handling of, the Antitrust 
case against Microsoft Corporation.
    To begin with, I do not feel this action is being taken against 
Microsoft on behalf of the American consumer. Fact is, it was then 
and is now, the consumer that decided what/which product they wanted 
and liked best. It was this very freedom of choice by the consumer 
and freedom of enterprise for American Businesses that has made 
Microsoft' and America, the great country it is today.
    It has been the great innovators like the John Rockefellers, JP 
Morgans, Andrew Carnegies Henry Fords, and the Bill Gates of our 
time that has made this Country the great success it enjoys today 
and, it was this freedom to innovate that encouraged them to get up 
every morning and forge ahead with their ideas and ideals. What 
might happen to this nation, and its great Corporations, if this 
freedom to express and freedom to innovate continues to get trampled 
on.
    It appears to me that the consumer can only be hurt and made to 
suffer the consequence of higher prices and less quality of product 
should the Government begin the dictatorial regulation of and 
dictating to a company what it can or cannot supply to, or for the 
benefit of, the consumer. It has been due to this freedom of 
innovation from Microsoft that the American consumer can today 
afford to have a computer in his home. It is also a computer in 
every home that has spurred an economic growth in this country 
unsurpassed by any nation in the world.
    It wasn't until the dictatorial intervention of our Government 
into the innovative business of one of this Nations greatest 
Companies that this Country's economy, over night, started on a 
downslide, and economic collapse, unparalleled in the history of the 
world. The economic destruction of recourses that has ensued has 
been devastating to the American consumer. What, with all this 
Consumer protection. levied against the consumer in the guise of 
protecting the consumer, I'm just not sure I can afford, or need, 
anymore of this kind of consumer protection. I feel that I have 
received far more value and protection from Microsoft than I have in 
the protectionist interference from our Government.
    This should be the business of business and not the interference 
of Government to dictate to the consumer what he or she can or 
cannot have and at what price we must pay for it. As a consumer and 
a Citizen of this great Land, I feel that I, and I alone, should 
decide what is served on my plate and how it is prepared.
    I have Windows on my computer, not because someone else decided 
for me what I should use? and not because Microsoft decided for me 
what I should use? I decided which was best for me from the many 
choices that were, and still are, available on the market today. And 
yes, there are choices out there. I? m sorry, but I am being made to 
feel that because of the wishes of a mere handful, it is the masses 
that must pay and this is just not right. It must not be right.
    What kind of settlement is it that would require a company to 
document and to disclose to its competitors the internal makeup of 
the various internal interfaces of its operating system products, 
and yet, that is exactly what this settlement requires of Microsoft. 
What more could Microsoft's competitors wish for and be more fair 
than this? Surely, this must be a first for an antitrust settlement.
    In closing, I would like to say I am a small-business owner and 
I depend on Microsoft to keep things running for me. If the federal 
government pursues three more years of litigation in this matter, it 
would not only hurt Microsoft, but millions of home computer users 
and businesses across the country. I urge you to please put these 
lawsuits to rest before our economy deteriorates any further. By 
intervening in business, you would only be discouraging competition 
by creating fear on the part of other companies wanting to enter the 
market. Bill Gates made some excellent business decisions, and he is 
now being punished for it. His company has done so much for the 
economy, and now the government is just wasting more money picking 
on their company.
    Sincerely,
    Luther Moon



MTC-00014412

From: Rick Morris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I strongly urge you to proceed with settlement of the Microsoft 
case. The federal government clearly will be overstepping its bounds 
by pursuing this case further.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Morris



MTC-00014413

From: Thrun Robert IHMD
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/21/02  9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft
    by Robert Thrun
    I have downloaded and read both the Proposed Final Judgment and 
the Competitive Impact Statement. I am speaking for myself and not 
for my employer.
    The Proposed Final Judgment seems to be an agreement by 
Microsoft to cease its illegal exclusionary tactics and do what it 
should have been doing all along. There is no punishment for past 
behavior or any ``affirmative action'' to re-establish competition. 
Even so, there are many loopholes that Microsoft can use to continue 
exclusionary tactics to maintain and extend its monopoly. The 
Competitive Impact Statement concentrates on Middleware and says 
nothing about other tactics that Microsoft uses.
    Breakup
    The Court of Appeals did not entirely rule out a breakup of 
Microsoft, but the Department of Justice abandoned the idea. I 
maintain that the best solution would be a breakup. Other solutions 
would involve micromanagement by either the courts or a government 
agency. I would break Microsoft into four parts:
    1. Operating systems
    2. Development tools, such as compilers
    3. Application programs, such as Word and Excel
    4. MSN, the Microsoft Network
    The compilers must be able to access the operating system 
functions. The Microsoft compilers have an advantage in that the 
operating system documentation assumes the use of Microsoft 
compilers, and the Microsoft compiler writers find out about 
operating system features before any writers of competitive 
compilers.
    The Microsoft application writers can request operating system 
support for features

[[Page 25937]]

they want to put into the applications and they find out about the 
operating system features before the writers of other application 
programs.
    Internet Explorer and Outlook keep wanting to connect to MSN and 
use it. This is a great marketing advantage.
    Definitions
    The Competitive Impact Statement is poorly written. The 
Competitive Impact Statement refers to ``definitions contained in 
the Proposed Final Judgment'', but the definitions are in the 
Competitive Impact Statement, not the Proposed Final Judgment. The 
definitions are complex, vague, and written to show where Microsoft 
does not have to disclose information. Under the terms of the 
Competitive Impact Statement, Microsoft seems to still be able to 
define what is Middleware and what is part of the operating system. 
Microsoft was able to claim that Internet Explorer was an essential, 
non-removable, part of Windows by simply moving five essential files 
into the Internet Explorer subdirectory.
    Microsoft claims to distinguish a new ``major version'' of 
Microsoft Middleware from an upgrade by its product numbering 
scheme. Then all Microsoft has to do to avoid releasing API details 
for a new Middleware version under section III.D of the Proposed 
Final Judgment is to change its numbering scheme.
    The Competitive Impact Statement says that Microsoft does not 
have to disclose API details to any company that has not sold at 
least a million copies of a similar Middleware Product in the 
previous year. This would exclude startup companies and established 
companies wishing to expand their product line.
    Prohibited Practice Issues
    Microsoft cannot retaliate against an OEM in a logo or software 
certification program. However, the biggest use of such a program 
applied to application program vendors at the introduction of 
Windows 95. Windows 95 will run applications written for the older 
Windows 3.1. Applications could not use the Windows logo in their 
packaging or advertising to state that they would run under Windows 
95 unless they were written in such a way that they would not run 
under Windows 3.1. This was a use of monopoly power that effectively 
killed some emulators that would have allowed Windows software to 
run under other operating systems.
    The uniform license agreements described in Section III.B of the 
Proposed Final Judgment apply only to Microsoft's top 20 customers. 
They should apply to all OEM customers. The smaller OEMs are more 
likely to offer custom configurations of the operating system.
    API Disclosures
    The section of the Competitive Impact Statement relating to 
Section III.D of the Proposed Final Judgment seems to say that 
Microsoft should release documentation about operating system APIs 
in much the same way it is currently being done. However, the 
Competitive Impact Statement has a couple of loopholes in its 
definition of ``Timely Manner''. For operating system APIs, 
documentation must be made available when a beta test version of the 
operating is released with a distribution of at least 150,000. What 
if only 140,000 copies are released? For Microsoft Middleware, the 
documentation must be released at the time of the final beta test 
version. Microsoft could release a beta just before the release of 
its product. Either way, this would allow time for the Microsoft 
products to become entrenched in the market.
    Communications Protocols
    Under the section of the Competitive Impact Statement entitled 
``Microsoft Must Make Available All Communications Protocols'' is is 
specifically stated that Microsoft does not have to disclose server-
server protocols! I don't know what, but it seems obvious that 
Microsoft has some trickery in mind with this provision.
    Preservation of OEM Defaults
    A provision of the Competitive Impact Statement allows Microsoft 
to ``override existing defaults'' when accessing a server maintained 
by Microsoft. This translates to a requirement for using Internet 
Explorer. Microsoft has already done this by blocking competitive 
browsers from downloading upgrades from its servers. Microsoft 
should not be allowed to do this.
    re Section III.J
    Microsoft is allowed to avoid disclosing information for several 
security-related reasons. Withholding information about protocols 
and interfaces may slow down an attack, but it does not increase the 
actual security of a system. The vulnerability is still there. If 
Microsoft is allowed to define what is security-related, it will be 
another large loophole.
    What Should be Done
    For starters, all information about all APIs and all protocols 
must be made available to all interested parties.
    This should be done well before Microsoft ships to OEMs or sells 
at retail any operating system, Middleware, or application that 
either provides or uses the API or protocol. Three months seems like 
a reasonable minimum time. Ideally, the Microsoft programmers should 
not have access to insider information about the operating system. 
There should be no secret calls or protocols.
    Microsoft has to document the APIs and protocols anyway before 
they are used by its internal programmers.
    The browser war is over. Microsoft won and I can think of 
nothing that will resurrect Netscape. Many of the issues that were 
brought up in the lawsuit are now moot. However, Microsoft is still 
engaged in anticompetitive practices that should be restrained. As I 
said before, a breakup would be the cleanest solution. Since this is 
unlikely, there are other restrictions that should be put in place.
    Much of the software battle has shifted over to file formats. 
Many people use Windows because they have to exchange files with 
users of Word, Power Point, or other Microsoft programs. Since the 
formats are undocumented, non-Microsoft programs or file converters 
have to guess at the details. Microsoft enjoys a monopoly or near-
monopoly position in most of the application categories in which it 
competes. Some of the file formats, like the WMF and EMF graphics 
files, are operating system file formats. All Microsoft file formats 
should be disclosed.
    A simple requirement that Microsoft disclose all interfaces, 
calls, protocols, and file formats would make unnecessary many of 
the definitions in the Competitive Impact Statement, eliminate 
loopholes, and make the settlement easier to understand.
    Microsoft has, by its monopoly position in operating system 
software, the ability to put almost any software product out of 
business by bundling a similar Microsoft product for ``free'' with 
the operating system. The Microsoft product is not actually free. 
The computer user pays for it as part of the price of the operating 
system. Microsoft has put many products off the market. Some, like 
memory managers or disk cache programs, provided services that are 
rightly part of an operating system. Others, like the browser, seem 
more like a application program. There was considerable innovation 
in all these product categories until Microsoft achieved dominance 
and very little since then.
    The Microsoft product that is included with the operating system 
has great competitive advantages. The non-Microsoft product has some 
cost versus no additional cost for the Microsoft product. Even if an 
OEM were to remove the Microsoft product from the installation, 
Microsoft is still paid for it. Being packaged in the default 
operating system installation means that the Microsoft product, in 
effect, sits on the shelf in front of the non-Microsoft product. 
Unless the Microsoft product performs very poorly, the market for 
the non-Microsoft product is very small. Microsoft is now including 
audio player and file compression software with its operating 
systems. The only way to keep Microsoft from driving all other 
similar products off the market is to require Microsoft to reduce 
the price of the operating system to the OEM if the OEM chooses to 
replace some Microsoft product that is bundled with the operating 
system. Similarly, there should be retail versions of the most 
popular stripped-down configurations. This will give consumers the 
option the option to not buy Microsoft products they do not want. 
Microsoft will still have a strong competitive position by virtue of 
name recognition.



MTC-00014414

From: Norris, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I use Macintosh computers, I like macs, and can make my own 
decisions, without the help of the ever wise, ever bungling federal 
government.
    Anti-trust laws are discriminatory to a modern minority called 
the ``businessman.'' Without whom the level of material wealth we 
enjoy today would be impossible. Anti-trust laws are so vague and 
ridiculous that they can not be adhered to. From day one, anyone 
entering into a business stand in vague violation of anti-trust 
laws. Why would one want to enter themselves into this situation? 
Because it is man's nature to produce, to use his/her mind, to 
invent, to create something better, and most importantly, to be free 
to do so.

[[Page 25938]]

    Some of Microsoft's business practices are shifty, but I propose 
that these be handled case-by-case, by private parties who feel they 
have been wronged (time-capital wasted) against Microsoft. It is not 
the U.S. government to enforce what bureaucrats perceive as ``unfair 
business practice.''
    There are other viable OS solutions out there. My favorite, 
BeOS. . .  but I own two Macs and prefer them to windows. I would 
not like to be told that I must pay more for MacOS, if some 
politician decided Apple were in some violation of anti-trust.
    If those Federal tax bucks are burning a hole in your pocket 
just come on out to Utah. . .  Our road here in SLC are terrible. 
Everyone here would love you more for fixing our roads.
    Best Regards,
    John Norris



MTC-00014415

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don't you think that we have paid plenty to the lawyers and is 
time to grow up and do the right thing for this country that we all 
love it, yes?
    Please, stop the litigation and settle the matter!
    Love and wisdom to all.



MTC-00014416

From: Dumb Az
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am, more or less, an average consumer. I have a personal 
computer, (obviously) and the following Microsoft products listed 
from memory: Windows XP, Flight Simulator 98, Age of Empires, 
Sidewinder joystick, and Streets & Trips 2001. I and others in my 
family have purchased these products of our own respective free-
wills. Although the others aren't available to comment as I write 
this, I for one have been pleased with these products.
    Nobody has ever forced me to either purchase or not purchase a 
single thing. Microsoft has been no exception. I have never seen any 
of the coercive force alleged by Microsoft's denouncers. In fact, it 
is because of this lack of coercion that I DO NOT subscribe to MSN. 
Instead, I subscribe to a locally based internet provider. Nor have 
I bought more recent versions of ``Flight Simulator'' as I don't see 
the changes as being significant enough to warrant the purchase. How 
could this be possible if Microsoft was forcing or manipulating 
people like me, as according to anti-trust proponents?
    I find it insulting to hear Microsoft bashers as well as anti-
capitalists characterize people like me as helpless victims who 
cannot choose what software to buy. This implies that we're mindless 
pawns, completely lacking of anything resembling free-will. I 
personally find this to be nothing less than a slap in the face.
    The very idea that a company like Microsoft can be punished for 
being sucessful in the United States of America (of all places) 
threatens my own future. I am an aspiring software developer myself, 
hoping to found my own privately owned company. Although I plan to 
focus on creating entertainment software only, I still see the fate 
of Microsoft in the anti-trust suits as being a precursor to my own 
fate.
    Remember: it was not consumers or Microsoft's partners who 
started the anti-trust case, but Microsoft's competitors. If I were 
to become very sucessful in my future venture, what would happen to 
me if a competitor who wasn't doing as well decided to accuse me of 
anti-trust violations?
    Microsoft competed vigorously in order to be the best. Yet, that 
is considered anti-competitive, implying that ``competitive'' means 
sacrificing one's own interests in order to allow competitors to win 
occasionally. If that's true, why does nobody apply the same logic 
to athletic competitions?
    It is supposed to be the duty of the United States government to 
protect each person's rights to life, liberty, and property. To 
punish Microsoft simply for the sake of whiny competitors is a 
violation of property rights. It is also a shameful betrayal of the 
constitutionally enshrined right to the pursuit of happiness, for if 
someone is punished for attaining what they pursued, (in Bill Gate's 
case, a software corporation of legendary success) where will it 
end?
    A self-made man like Bill Gates, (and hopefully me too someday) 
who became sucessful by offering preferable products and services, 
deserves whatever money people willingly give in exchange for said 
products and services. The uncoerced choice of each individual by 
their own free-will is the American dream, as opposed to edicts of 
sacrifice to those whose goods weren't chosen by said free-will.
    Sincerely,
    Mitchell A. Gyde



MTC-00014418

From: Jesse Max
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:43pm
Subject: I think the judgement is completely unfair
    Hi, My name is Jesse, I'm a 10 year old boy. I use both Linux 
and Windows (and not so much windows anymore).
    I think it would be a good idea for you to take the money that 
Microsoft got by doing illegal things and use it to help Linux, 
which is Microsoft's best competition.
    I also think Linux is just straight out better!
    Thanks,
    Jesse LaVercombe



MTC-00014419

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
CFC, Inc.
January 21, 2002
CFC, Inc.
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen and voting American, I write you 
regarding the Microsoft settlement. I cannot believe that this 
settlement is still being dragged through the mud. Doesn't the 
government have more important issues to focus on? I think it is 
time we let this well thought out agreement speak for itself and let 
the IT sector get back to business. Anti-trust isn't there to keep 
companies from having to compete with their competitors. It is 
suppose to protect consumers. The longer this is drawn out the more 
it hurts consumers.
    The terms of this settlement are a step toward a more unified IT 
sector. The terms include changes in licensing, marketing, and even 
design. In an anti-trust settlement first, Microsoft has agreed to 
disclose various interfaces that are internal to Windows operating 
system products. All of these concessions are slated to be overseen 
by a committee that will make sure that Microsoft is following 
proper procedure. Not only are their strong statements in these 
terms, but also there are plenty of safeguards to help non-Microsoft 
companies along the way.
    I support the settlement as it stands, and hope we soon put 
these terms into action and let the free enterprise system work.
    Sincerely,
    Shelley Krumnow
    President



MTC-00014420

From: David Binns Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please stop harassing Microsoft, they have only created wealth 
for everyone around the world, they should only be lauded.
    When you punish them you diminish us all.



MTC-00014421

From: Ralph C. Whaley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ``The Bush administration would be smart to launch a review of 
the country's antitrust laws''. The objective should be repeal not 
reform. The principle of America's founding is ``Individual 
Rights'', rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of 
happiness. Property rights include the right to set the terms of use 
and trade of the property a man creates.
    Microsoft has created products of great value and set the terms 
of trade and use of those products to the benefit of millions who 
bought those products by free choice.
    Microsoft has earned huge profits for its employees and stock 
holders by these free market trades.
    Competing companies have failed to keep up and demanded that the 
government ``rein in'' Microsoft for their benefit.
    Antitrust laws are designed to restrain the successful for the 
benefit of the envious. They are un-American, unjust and should be 
repealed! Jane P. Whaley



MTC-00014422

From: diane
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:22pm

[[Page 25939]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since this offer from Microsoft was first published,I have been 
astonished that it was ever considered by the courts. Couls it have 
been presented with a straight face ?
    To allow Microsoft to make reparations for its illegal acts by 
offering to hand it thousands of new customers at little cost simply 
amazes me, astonishes me.
    Is this how illegal behaviour is punished or is it being 
rewarded ?
    The whole story is a Seinfeld routine, except, it's not funny.
    Don Vetere
    Toronto



MTC-00014423

From: markrwilliams2000
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The legal attack against Microsoft goes against the very concept 
of free markets and capitalism.
    Let the market decide.
    Mark Williams
    Huntington Beach, CA



MTC-00014424

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:32pm
Subject: Justice for Microsoft
    Your Honor,
    Microsoft is a company that consistently innovates and creates 
superb new products. There is a reason that they have millions of 
satisfied customers around the world: they provide outstanding and 
affordable products.
    Justice requires that a company so creative and proficient be 
honored, not criticized or attacked. Please do justice to an 
enormously productive company.
    At your leisure, please re-read Ayn Rand's seminal novel, Atlas 
Shrugged, for the moral and philosophical principles underlying the 
necessity of doing justice to the producers.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D.
    Dept. of Philosophy
    Pace University



MTC-00014425

From: David Atkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    First of all, let me say I am impressed with the depth and 
breadth of research you performed in compiling the Complaint 
document of 5/18/1998. I am a software engineer with 15 years 
experience, and fully understand the difficulty in describing 
computer terminology and functionality. Your descriptions were 
accurate, enlightening, and readable!
    I must say I was extremely disappointed when the original final 
judgement, which included the breakup of Microsoft, was overturned. 
You seem to be very practical in working towards a resolution, 
knowing any other approach would result in protacted legal action. I 
wonder how Microsoft's behavior has compared to prior monopoly cases 
which resulted in company breakups, such as Standard Oil and AT&T?
    However I have a concern with the proposed final judgement. I 
agree with the concept of the TC. You state the members have power 
to acquire and hire resources as necessary to verify compliance with 
the judgement. However, given the complexity and content of 
Microsoft software, is a 5 year compliance period long enough? Even 
relatively minor software projects with dedicated, experienced 
staffs, require months to complete. Perhaps 7 years would be more 
reasonable. The TC will probably require 6 months to a year to get 
their feet on the ground. Then, given the size and complexity of 
Microsoft's code, will need to begin hiring resources for 
assistance. The resources will then need time to get up to speed. In 
a nutshell, the TC will probably start to do ``real'' work about 18 
months into the settlement.
    This also assumes the Microsoft appointed member of the 
committee is a legitimately objective member of the team, and not 
just a Microsoft defender.
    Regards,
    David Atkins
    9607 Briar Circle
    Bloomington, MN 55437
    952-831-1759
    d a t k i n s 1 @ m n . r r . c o m



MTC-00014426

From: sueagib
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be applauded for their innovations throughout 
the years, not punished. They gave the public what was needed that 
other companies had not furnished; and therefore, they made the tech 
sector progress much faster and farther than it would have normally 
in the short period of time.
    Sue Gibson
    3353 Valley View Ave.
    Roanoke, VA 24012



MTC-00014427

From: Scott A. Renshaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The only true monopoly is one created by or supported by the 
government. Let businesses thrive or fail on their own. Stay out of 
the way of successful businesses like Microsoft.
    HANDS OFF!
    Signed,
    Scott A. Renshaw



MTC-00014428

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I believe the antitrust case against Microsoft should be settled 
by the United States refunding the money Microsoft has been forced 
to spend in its defense and by paying to Microsoft such damages as 
have been caused by the interruption of its business.
    I have been using personal computers for many years. Most people 
would consider me a computer expert and it is clear to me that 
Microsoft is not a monopoly. On my home computer I use both Redhat 
Linux and Microsoft Windows 98 operating systems. At work I use 
UNIX, Linux, and Windows. This letter was written using no Microsoft 
software at all.
    That doesn't sound like a Microsoft monopoly to me. Personally I 
do not really care for the Microsoft OS--I much prefer Linux. I find 
the Windows interface unstable, condescending, and insecure. I use 
Microsoft Windows because it came free with my computer and allows 
me the flexibility to use some very good software programs that were 
designed by those who wrote them to run only under a Microsoft 
operating system. Software developers have the right to choose which 
OS(s) they write their software to run on. If they choose to program 
only for Windows, so be it. This is a personal business decision 
that no one has the right to interfere with. If I don't like it I am 
not forced to use their software--neither is anyone else.
    Microsoft has a right to produce and sell any software they 
wish. They have the right to bundle this software with their 
operating system, sell it separately, or give it away. No one can 
claim the right to make Microsoft work to benefit its competitors. 
The United States Government should be defending Microsoft against 
such unjust claims against its property. Yet the government seems to 
view the men and women who own Microsoft, and the software they have 
created, as some kind of government property--to be handed out to 
whoever makes a claim.
    The government has made the claim that Microsoft has used its 
alleged monopoly to hurt consumers. This claim could not be farther 
from the truth. The presence of Microsoft has caused a great deal of 
competition which has improved software and the software industry. 
For example, Linux companies were forced to make user-friendly 
versions with Windows-like graphic user interfaces to keep up with 
Microsoft. As a result of this competitive pressure consumers can 
now buy a complete Linux operating system, like Redhat 7.2, with web 
browsers and office software for less than $60. How exactly has this 
hurt consumers?
    This whole antitrust case makes me wonder who will be attacked 
after Microsoft. Will Redhat be broken up because they bundle web 
browsers and office software with their OS? Will all those who sell 
Linux be forced to stop giving out the source code along with their 
software? It seems to me that the government's role in economics 
should be to prevent anyone from initiating force or fraud. Then 
they should get out of the way and let the capitalism work.
    Kindest regards,
    Reed Kofoed
    90 West McArthur Ave
    Winnemucca Nevada 89445



MTC-00014429

From: Michael De Jong

[[Page 25940]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft's Settlement
    To Whom it may concern
    Note acronyms: OS--operating system, IE--Internet Explorer, MS-- 
Microsoft
    ? As a computer use since 1980, I have witnessed Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices with horror. I have owned many computers 
since 1980, platforms including Commodore--with DOS, Atari St with 
Gem operating system and now Apple Macintosh--with Mac OS for the 
past 8 years.
    ? It is sad that a company like Microsoft has continued it's 
practices of bullying other companies into oblivion, some of course 
like Commodore and Atari did not have enough finances to compete and 
made crucial mistakes.
    ? Apple and Sun are two examples of companies who truly INNOVATE 
and yet they are kept at bay by Microsoft's practices. A company 
like Sun comes out with the JAVA language, a language that all 
platforms can communicate with, then Microsoft seeks a way to render 
it useless on other's platforms.
    ? Companies like Apple spend lots of money on R & D for it's 
innovations and Microsoft turn's the technology into it's own. 
Rectify Microsoft's practices
    ? Microsoft claiming that it's IE browser is integrated into 
it's own OS for ease is nonsense. To split them apart would be 
damaging is utter nonsense. Microsoft has the power to make it's 
browser work on it's own. Browsers on the Mac OS platform are their 
own entity, if you want to delete the browser, just drag the browser 
(Netscape or IE) to the trash and that is that. They do not wreck 
the MAC OS by doing so. Microsoft is very capable of making their OS 
work side by side with a browser. What is next, incorporating their 
own Picture, Video and Audio editing software into their OS and 
forcing companies like Adobe products to become impossible of 
running on Microsoft Windows. From what I've seen, it looks like 
Windows XP OS is already incorporating some of these programs/
features.
    Programs should be their own source running with the OS, not 
intertwined. This means if they are eliminated the OS will still 
work great. This allows companies like Apple, Real, Netscape to 
design applications for Windows OS and make them work flawlessly. 
These competing companies should be able to have their product on 
every shipped Windows computer with their icon on the desktop or in 
the start menu alongside Microsoft's apps, so as the customer has 
choice. The same should be done on other computing platforms like 
the Mac OS, Linux, Sun, etc.
    ? Microsoft's source code should be exposed to everyone who 
wants to see it. This would allow more exciting software development 
to emerge and compatibility between other platforms could increase.
    ? Microsoft software like MS Office should continue to be made 
for competing platforms. Also it's files should be made compatible 
with competing products. Example--when creating a MS word document, 
you should be able to save the document to a competitor's product 
like Appleworks, Corel Wordperfect, etc. This can easily be done on 
Microsoft's part. Apple's Word Processor--Appleworks allows one to 
open MS Word, save as MS word, so why cannot MS Word be designed to 
open an Appleworks document?
    ? Microsoft's 1 Billion dollar settlement for schools should be 
in cash, not Microsoft software. Let the schools decide where to 
spend the money. Allowing Microsoft to donate their own software and 
hardware will only increase their monopolistic power and make our 
children less educated. (meaning children will only be exposed to 
one type of computer OS, children are the best at learning two or 
more OS's. It is like learning more than one language, you can form 
a more honest opinion about one's language when you know the 
differences and benefit in the real work force which could be using 
tools like Mac OS or Windows.
    I love the computing industry, their are great things about 
Apple, Sun and even Windows that make my computing life enjoyable. 
But Microsoft does more damage to this industry by forcing others to 
use their inferior products. Our world will become even more 
stagnant if Microsoft is not dealt with very soon. The world would 
be a pretty boring place if the only car we could drive were Ford 
Pintos or if the only highway we could take was a gravel road that 
took us 4000 miles of course towards our true destination. . . . 
.advancement, progress and a better way of life.
    Thank You
    Michael De Jong
    Calgary, AB



MTC-00014430

From: Ralph Mullinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ, I support a speedy and non-punitive end to the 
Microsoft litigation, and if the settlement facilitates that, I 
support it. I definitely do NOT want to see Microsoft broken up, nor 
heavy penalties exacted from the firm. I do not hold the position 
that they did ``nothing wrong''. The company was a hardball 
competitor and employed some very unsavory tactics. The settlement 
should make it clear exactly what sort of behavior they are to 
refrain from in the future. But I do not believe that they knowingly 
broke the law, and don't believe they should be severely punished. I 
also believe the Government has a long history of confusing 
``protecting competition'' with protecting competitors. Slap 
Microsoft's wrist, clearly spell out what they are not to do, and be 
done with it. If possible, stop the states from pursuing the matter 
further as well. Thank You! Ralph Mullinger



MTC-00014431

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement.
    It doesn't stop the Monopolistic behavior.It does't punish 
Microsoft for putting Netscape and others ``out of business'' by 
giving away a copy of their product.
    They have continued the practice of adding new products to their 
Operating System so as to eliminate competition.
    This ongoing style of business is a monopoly and stifles 
competition.
    I urge you to follow the original Judge's reccomendations and 
break Microsoft in to at least two parts.
    They are thumbing their noses at the government and the people 
of this country.Their conduct leads to squelching competition and is 
bad for all the rest of us.
    Sincerely,
    D. McDonald
    e-mail address: [email protected]



MTC-00014432

From: Derek Kent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a start, but has a long ways to go, I strongly urge you 
to pursue stronger remedies that will have a real impact at 
restoring competition to the industry.
    Example, disclosing some APIs to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs is a start, but all APIs should be released into the public 
domain, although Microsoft should be allowed to maintain some rights 
to them. Sections F and G are a good beginning.
    A number of other additional steps need to be made that I will 
not go into here, although I urge you to look into pursuing (I'm 
sure you've received numerous suggestions).
    Dak



MTC-00014433

From: Bob Nystrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:24pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Comments
    I am 50 and have been in the electronics business since I was 
15. I grew up with computers and have watched the rise of Bill Gates 
& Co. I have several conclusions on the anti-trust case:
    1. There is no one- repeat no one- in this business who doubts 
for one minute that Microsoft is a monopoly. Everyone is looking 
over their shoulder to see if they will be the next casualty. 
Microsoft is not where they are because of good products. The 
products have been forced upon the consumer by leverage of their 
operating system monopoly. This monopoly- through licensing and 
other means- has NOT allowed the consumer to evaluate alternative 
products. I could not buy a PC without Windows. Dell and the others 
COULD NOT sell me one. In my informal polls, the average consumer 
does not understand that Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc even come 
from the same company. They do not realize that a PC box from Dell, 
Gateway, IBM, etc are all the same. They think of it as Ford, GM, or 
Honda- which, of course, it isn't. There is no choice.
    2. I would venture that you- the judges, clerks, etc are close 
to my generation. No where is the computer gap more evident. I can't 
believe you have even a clue as to the extent of Gates's reach and 
the significance of complete control of the operating system. This 
monopoly goes way, way beyond steel or the Bells.

[[Page 25941]]

    3. The proposed settlement is a joke. It is known in the art 
that Microsoft is a monopoly. They have been legally declared a 
monopoly. And what do you do? This is not even a slap on the wrist. 
And as with every other involvement with Gates, he is telling YOU 
what YOU are going to do. The three person oversight is completely 
ludicrous and unworkable.
    4. In the trenches, the conclusion is that this is a buyoff with 
Bush. This is so blatant there can be no other explanation. As sad 
as Sept 11 was, it provided an excuse for the administration to back 
off of Microsoft. Software types that I run into just write this off 
as a complete sell out by the Justice Department. Your department 
really is the laughing stock of the software community. You can't be 
this clueless, can you? How does this settlement help me, the 
consumer? How does it help the innovative companies that have been 
steamrolled by Microsoft? How? How?
    5. I am sure the boogeyman here is we don't want to hurt the 
economy by upsetting Microsoft. I would posit that 39 billionaires, 
900 multi-millionaires, and 100 just plain millionaires would 
stimulate the economy far more than one ``forty billionaire'' who 
will stop at nothing to own it all. Microsoft does not partner- 
Period.
    6. As XP becomes entrenched, there will be control of so many 
systems and points of distribution that it will make past actions 
look like child's play. It is a Trojan horse. Microsoft is pulling 
out all stops on this one. They are taking no prisoners. You are way 
too little and way too late.
    7. This is the last chance to stop Microsoft. This settlement is 
a disgrace to your office and to this country.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Nystrom
    16 Rhonda Rheault Dr
    Oxford, MA 01540



MTC-00014434

From: Jared T.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The purposed Microsoft settlement is a slap in the face to 
antitrust laws and the American public. Here is my opinion on what 
needs to be done to Microsoft:
    1. Stiff fines and monetary penalties.
    2. Their ten most popular software titles MUST be developed for 
the Mac OS X platform (this is excluding the applications that 
currently exist on the Macintosh such as Office, Media Player, MSN 
Messenger, etc.). They will be required to continue the development 
of these software titles for the next ten years.
    3. The source code for Internet Explorer must be made public so 
that developers can take advantage of ``hooks'' in the code that 
only Microsoft knew about previously.
    I feel that the ideas outlined above serve as fair and just 
punishment to the Microsoft monopoly. The fines and financial 
penalties will serve as a remedy for the overpriced software they 
have pushed upon consumers over the last seven years. The 
requirement of developing more applications for the Macintosh will 
help spur more competition and innovation in the computer industry. 
And, finally, opening the source code to Internet Explorer will give 
everyone the tools to take advantage of the ``hooks'' in the 
software code. More powerful and secure web applications will 
result.
    Jared Traum
    Orlando, FL



MTC-00014435

From: Jamus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should not be given a ``reward'' by having to pay out 
$1 billion in cash and products. This is not a punishment; it is a 
nail put in the coffin of any possible competition that Microsoft 
might have.
    The company should be forced to provide a FAIR playing field for 
any settlement that is proposed. ``Giving'' the schools all of those 
Microsoft products basically guarantees those schools (including the 
students and faculty) a future reliance on Microsoft. Please do not 
let that happen.
    Microsoft is an overly competitive company that twists the rules 
of free enterprise however it sees fit with NO regard to consumer 
needs and RIGHTS.
    It does not ``innovate''; it SUFFOCATES the industry by force 
feeding it's own standards. That is not good for consumers, 
government, or the tech industry.
    Thank you,
    Jason Musselwhite
    822 Pine Circle
    Starkville, MS 39759



MTC-00014436

From: Pam Takada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Subject: Microsoft should be split into 2 companies.
    The previously proposed settlement was a complete a joke. This 
``settlement'' only further served to increase its monopoly 
position.
    Microsoft has and continues to act as a predatory monopoly. As 
such, the company deserves to be split into 2 companies: one company 
which develops operating systems, and the other company which 
develops applications.
    Microsoft stifles competition and treats its competitors with 
heavy handed bullying tactics.
    I am not connected in any way with Microsoft or any of its 
competitors.
    Thank you,
    Kevin Takada
    916 San Ramon Ave.
    Huntsville, AL 35802



MTC-00014437

From: Alex Silverman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As an individual, I have benefited gloriously from the 
ingenuity, production, and thought that Microsoft has utilized over 
the years. It utterly baffles me why anyone would want to punish 
such life-promoting virtues.
    I ask you: What exactly has Microsoft done wrong?
--Bill Gates earned a living by producing products that he chose to 
trade with others. (Inalienable right to life) Is this wrong?
--No one was forced to deal with Microsoft. Individual people 
willingly bought Microsoft products, trading goods for goods 
voluntarily--myself included. (Inalienable right to liberty) Is this 
wrong?
--Their products were and are so effective, that everyone chose 
Microsoft over other companies. (Inalienable right to the pursuit of 
happiness) Is this wrong?
    Is this what we are to punish Microsoft for, for its earned 
success and dissemination of the products of efficacy? Are we to 
punish Microsoft because it is ``too good'', i.e., because it 
promotes life, liberty and happiness ``too much''?
    It is by this standard (i.e., our constitution) that I pronounce 
Microsoft as profoundly moral, and deserving of praise--not 
punishment, fines, and expropriation. Bill Gates and Microsoft have 
a right to the goods that they produce by their own effort, i.e., 
they have a right their own property. Expropriating them--and for 
their success no less--is too scary for words. I ask you, in the 
name of individual rights, and everything that this country stands 
for: do not punish the successful because they are successful. Let 
Microsoft--as well as every other business and individual in our 
great country--be free to pursue their life, liberty, and happiness.
    Patriotically,
    Alex Silverman
    Wakefield, Massachusetts
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014438

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think punsihing microsoft for it's success is not only bad but 
it is also evil. Microsoft has gotten where it has because of smart 
business practices.
    It wants its product in all hardware is that evil? you say it 
is. I don't think so they don't force one company to use it's 
product. When I write force I don't mean pressure I mean with guns. 
Thats what the U.S government(all governments) does when it dosn't 
like what a company does. You claim to help the consumer but you are 
frauds. If people say they that they have the right to a product 
without microsoft products they're wrong. They have a right to a 
trade but they don't have a right to force a company to make 
something the way they want it. If they don't want micfosoft on 
there they'd have another operating system with less support(no 
software would work on it) or the manufacturer of the PC will have 
to make it's own. Any body can download another operating system or 
another browser too. Thats including netscape.
    The people who say otherwise just want to see a successfull 
company paralized. They hate main stream business and microsoft is 
the most main stream. I urge the justice

[[Page 25942]]

department to not punish successful business. It's a lie to say your 
punishing bad business practices but it's not that at all. All 
governemts support one business or more who stays a monopoly by the 
force of guns like the U.S postal service. The U.S government is 
very hypocritical. People clamor for comsumer rights but what about 
producer rights. I see microsoft and other sucessfull companies to 
be like parants.
    They support us and feed us yet like children we don't 
appreciate that and what's worse we put guns to their heads and make 
them do what we want. Can the reader do that to their parants? I 
think not. So what is microsoft it big right now. Can you honestly 
say another company want make a better more main stream operating 
system that anybody could use? The justice department has not right 
what so ever to break up a monopoly. If it's in the name of the 
people to break up companies then people want must demand sacrifice.
    Well if they want to sacrifice companies for the public damn the 
justice department and damn the public.



MTC-00014439

From: Louis B. Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02  11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
19575 East 128th Ave
Commerce City, CO 80022
22 January 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Via Electronic Mail and USPS.
    To whom it may concern,
    We are writing with regard to the proposed settlement of the 
Civil Action No. 98-1232 The United States of America v. Microsoft 
Corporation which was published in the Federal Register on 28 
November 2001 in accord with the provisions of the Tunney Act and 
pursuant to the Court's order of 08 November 2001.
    In considering the proposed remedy in the above referenced case 
we take as our starting point the summary in the Department of 
Justice COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT: The Court of Appeals upheld 
the conclusion that Microsoft had engaged in a variety of 
exclusionary acts designed to protect its operating system monopoly 
from the threat posed by a type of platform software known as 
``middleware,'' in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 
Specifically, the Court determined that, in response to the 
middleware threat, Microsoft:
    (1) undertook a variety of restrictions on personal computer 
Original Equipment Manufacturers (``OEMs''); (2) integrated its Web 
browser into Windows in a non-removable way while excluding rivals; 
(3) engaged in restrictive and exclusionary dealings with Internet 
Access Providers, Independent Software Vendors and Apple Computer; 
and (4) attempted to mislead and threaten software developers in 
order to contain and subvert Java middleware technologies that 
threatened Microsoft's operating system monopoly.
    It is probable in this case that some form of structural remedy 
would have been the most effective in curbing the monopolistic 
abuses while avoiding the expected difficulties involved with 
governmental regulation. Microsoft has worked itself to the level of 
a utility not unlike the AT&T of the late 1970s. An economic power 
of this scale ultimately has to be regulated or structurally altered 
in order to prevent continuing harm of the types found by the 
District and Appeals Courts. It is a surprise, therefore, that the 
DoJ chose to remove the structural remedy from the negotiating table 
so early in the process.
    We have examined the proposed settlement in an attempt to judge 
its effectiveness, both in redressing the harm the Defendant has 
caused and in preventing further harm by action of the Defendant. We 
have likewise examined the provisions proposed by the nine states 
(California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, West Virginia and Utah) in their alternative settlement. 
If the process requires choice of one of these two proposed 
settlements, then we respectfully suggest that the nine states'' 
proposal be the one selected, as it appears to offer a better chance 
of correcting the harms found to have been caused by Microsoft's 
Sherman Act violation by the District Court and unanimously affirmed 
by the Appeals Court. Detailed information concerning this 
preference will doubtless be submitted by others, so we will 
describe only two examples to illustrate the reasons for preferring 
either the nine-state alternative or structural remedies in this 
case.
    (1) Section VI. U.
    The District and Appeals court found that Microsoft had 
``integrated its Web browser into Windows in a non-removable way 
while excluding rivals''. The proposed settlement contains various 
rules concerning ``Middleware'' and some definitions:
    Section VI. J ``Microsoft Middleware'' means software code that 
1. Microsoft distributes separately from a Windows Operating System 
Product to update that Windows Operating System Product;
    Section VI. U. . . .  The software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its 
sole discretion.
    This would appear to introduce a large degree of ambiguity. For 
example:
    1. The definitions ultimately lead to the Defendant's defining 
what is and what is not the ``Windows Operating System Product''.
    2. As long as the Defendant defines what consitutes the 
``Windows Operating System Product,'' ISVs will never be sure if 
they are competing with Windows or with a Middleware product.
    3. Consumers will never know the true cost of the Microsoft 
products they are purchasing, as long as the price is hidden in the 
cost of the system as a whole and they are uncertain as to what is 
or is not part of the ``Windows Operating System Product''.
    Under the nine-states proposal Microsoft would offer an 
unbundled version of Windows, as well as the usual product. This 
would help to define what constitutes the Operating System and what 
contitutes a bundled or ``integrated'' product.
    (2) Section III.J.2
    The public is best served when communications protocols and APIs 
adhere to common, publicly available, and documented standards such 
as the Internet Engineering Task Force Requests For Comment. 
Considerable effort has been made by researchers, hobbyists and 
501(c)3 not-for-profits towards such public interoperable standards.
    J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:. . . 
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no 
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of 
intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for 
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or 
shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, 
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication 
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by
    Microsoft, to test for and ensure verification and compliance 
with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or interface, which 
specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of 
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
    Among the problems that stand out in this section:
    1. The defendant will have a conflict of interest in that it 
will be certifying the authenticity and viability of entities 
attempting to compete with the defendant.
    2. The provision sets up several barriers to many of the 
501(c)3s, academcians, researchers and hobbyists that helped build, 
and continue to help maintain, the Internet in the first place.
    A far better approach would be for the defendant to adhere to 
published standards from appropriate independent bodies than for the 
defendant to pick and choose who may compete with it.
    In conclusion, we do not see how the remedy proposed by the DoJ 
and Microsoft will address the the harms found by the District Court 
and affirmed by the Appeals Court.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /Signed/
    Johanna S. Billmyer
    /Signed/
    Louis B. Moore
    CC:Louis Moore,J Billmyer



MTC-00014440

From: MARIAN 7 CHARLIE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Original Message
From: ``Microsoft's Freedom To Innovate Network'' 
[email protected]>

[[Page 25943]]

To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Attorney General John Ashcroft Letter
    Attached is the letter we have drafted for you based on your 
comments. Please review it and make changes to anything that does 
not represent what you think. If you received this letter by fax, 
you can photocopy it onto your business letterhead; if the letter 
was emailed, just print it out on your letterhead. Then sign and fax 
it to the Attorney General. We believe that it is essential to let 
our Attorney General know how important this issue is to their 
constituents. The public comment period for this issue ends on 
January 28th. Please send in your letter as soon as is convenient.
    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



MTC-00014441

From: MARIAN 7 CHARLIE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walker G. P. LLC
1841 Fairfax Paris, Texas 75460
Fax 903-784-6648 Ph. 903-784-4919
January, 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write to you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
settlement. The Department of Justice has now spent three years 
toiling over this issue without any resolution. Finally last 
November a tentative settlement agreement was reached. This 
settlement should be enacted with haste. It represents a fair 
mediation between all parties involved.
    The terms of the settlement are very fair. Microsoft now agrees 
to license its Windows software at the same rate to the largest 
manufacturers of PCs. This make the marketplace much mole 
competitive. Also Microsoft will agree not to retaliate against 
companies that use, sell, or promote non-Microsoft products. 
Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to share information with its 
competitors that will allow them to more easily place their own 
programs on the Windows operating system.
    Obviously Microsoft has been generous in resolving this issue. 
The Justice Department must enact this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    C. L. Walker
    Sincerely,



MTC-00014442

From: Greg Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 21, 2002
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a software engineer in Seattle, Washington. I earned my 
Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science in 1987 from the University of 
California at Berkeley, and my Ph.D. in Computer Science and 
Engineering in 1992 from the University of Washington.
    Upon reading the Proposed Final Judgment and the Competitive 
Impact Statement in the United States vs. Microsoft, it appears to 
me that the proposed final judgment is too lenient, too lax, and too 
full of loopholes.
    The proposed final judgment is too lenient for Microsoft. They 
have been flaunting the law since they entered into a final judgment 
in 1995. The District Court found, and the Appeals Court agreed, 
that they have been illegally maintaining their monopoly for years, 
and in the process have essentially killed Netscape Corporation and 
threatened major computer companies such as Intel and Apple. It is 
widely believed that no venture capital money is available for a 
product that will or might compete with Microsoft, as Microsoft will 
crush any such competitor before it becomes to popular, whether by 
threats, or by folding software similar to the product into its 
operating system and distributing it `free'' to all who use their 
monopoly operating system.
    Despite all this, the proposed final judgment does little to 
punish Microsoft for this conduct, or to insure that it cannot 
continue using the same tactics in the future. In particular, 
definition VI.U. says ``The software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its 
sole discretion,'' thus making it impossible in the future to 
sustain a claim against Microsoft that it maintained its monopoly by 
illegally tying another product to its operating system.
    I would like to see stricter conduct remedies, if not a 
structural remedy. I also share Ralph Nader and James Love's 
surprise (see http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnj12kollarkotellynov501.html) that there is no monetary penalty 
attached, if only to prevent Microsoft from using its ill-gotten 
gains to buy or otherwise fund its way out of future competition.
    The proposed final judgment is also much too lax. The judgment 
gives too much discretion to Microsoft, and its enforcement regime 
seems designed to allow Microsoft to delay its way out of any 
violations. The Technical Committee seems too powerless; it cannot 
impose any actual penalties, only report on violations, and the 
reports cannot even be made available to the public. Much of the 
apparent recent improvement in Microsoft's behavior appears to be 
due to publicity about its practices. It follows that the 
enforcement process should be as open as possible, not closed as the 
agreement stipulates.
    Most disturbing, though, is the number of instances in the 
proposed final judgment where Microsoft is given the power to decide 
things on its own. The company has been found guilty of anti-trust 
violations, and has acted in bad faith towards the court both with 
regards to the earlier final judgment, and numerous times during the 
recent trial actions. Yet in many clauses, the judgment allows the 
company discretion to make exceptions. By past behavior, we can only 
expect the company to abuse this discretion, at the very least to 
delay any action it does not like, at worst to subvert the process.
    For example, the `notwithstanding'' clauses after III.H.3 allow 
Microsoft discretion to void the previous section (and using the 
vague and undefined term `reasonably prompt manner' to allow 
Microsoft to stall against any objections). Particularly troublesome 
is III.J.2, a clause which seems to be designed to allow Microsoft 
to ignore legitimate requests from open source software developers 
(because they typically do not have a business behind them, and 
therefore no `authentic'' or `viable'' business). This is 
particularly troublesome because Microsoft has recently made a 
number of statements declaring open source software for example, `a 
cancer', `unamerican', and the number one threat to their business.
    I would suggest that Nader and Love's suggestions about the term 
of the judgment and its enforcement mechanism be used. The current 
version merely seems to introduce a level of bureaucracy between 
Microsoft and actual enforcement power. In addition, instead of 
giving Microsoft latitude to make exceptions as in III.H.3 or 
III.J.2, Microsoft should be allowed to *propose* exceptions to the 
Technical Committee, which would make the final decision, with the 
stipulation that when in doubt, the committee should err on the side 
of openness to outsiders.
    Finally, open source software should be recognized as the public 
benefit that it is, and open source developers and projects be 
accorded the same privileges as standard businesses, if not more.
    Finally, as an expert in the field, I would like to point out 
how riddled with loopholes the judgment is. The drafters seem 
myopically focused on the current characteristics of Middleware 
software and products, and unaware how simple it would be to 
circumvent the spirit of the judgment using its own text.
    As a simple example, consider the various definitions of 
Middleware and Middleware Products. They all implicitly consider 
software that lies directly between the user and the operating 
system. It would be simple matter for Microsoft to break the 
agreement by devising another layer of middleware, between the 
current middleware and the operating system. For example, according 
to III.D., Microsoft must eventually release `the APIs and related 
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate 
with a Windows Operating System Product'. With an extra layer added, 
currently existing middleware will no longer operate with the 
Operating System Product, and thus its APIs need not be released. 
I'm dubious the new layer, which does interoperate with the 
operating system, would be defined as middleware, either, as it 
would not seem to fit the judgment's

[[Page 25944]]

definitions, which describe middleware in terms of current products. 
Even if the enforcers of the judgment would not accept this 
transparent ploy, it seems likely to me that Microsoft could, as in 
the past, use their considerable political, legal and monetary power 
to delay a judgment against them. Given the short term of the 
judgment, this and similar ploys should be prohibited outright.
    Let me give some more examples of how Microsoft could use the 
narrow language of the judgment to circumvent it. Section III.E. 
could be circumvented in a way similar to III.D, by imposing another 
layer between the server operating system and the Windows Operating 
System (say, another server operating system). The communications 
between the Windows Operating System and the first server operating 
system would have to be documented, but not the communications 
between the first server and the second. If this does not seem 
sufficiently devious, consider a protocol where the Windows 
Operating System sends 10 messages to (possibly different) servers, 
and the servers communicate between themselves to act on 1 of the 10 
and ignore the other 9. Anyone who wishes to compete by supplying a 
substitute for the servers would be hard-pressed to figure out what 
was actually going on without information about the protocol between 
the servers, but this protocol need not be disclosed by Microsoft.
    Note also that Microsoft's current direction (.NET) is toward 
Middleware accessing servers directly; it would seem by the judgment 
that Microsoft is free to abuse its monopoly as much as it wishes in 
this area, as the judgment does not place any conditions on 
middleware that does not talk to the desktop operating system.
    Another avenue of circumvention is software such as Microsoft 
Office; clearly Office would not be defined as middleware or part of 
the operating system. However, there is nothing to stop Microsoft 
from grafting some communication code into future versions of Office 
to exploit these definitions. For example, suppose Microsoft 
includes code in its web browser that, on startup, communicates with 
a running Office program that it has started up, and the Office 
program in turn passes an `OK to browse'' message on to the 
Operating System. Suppose also that the Operating System code is 
rewritten so that, if a browser attempts to get a web page and the 
Operating System has not gotten such an `OK', it terminates the 
browser program. None of the browser-Office or Office-operating 
system communication needs to be disclosed to outside parties, as 
Office is neither middleware nor part of the operating system. But 
the net effect would be that any non-Microsoft browser would be 
mysteriously broken.
    Another problem arises with III.J.1.a, which allows Microsoft to 
refuse to disclose `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.'' 
This section can be abused to prevent disclosure of information 
about *any* protocol, by including in the protocol information which 
helps to disclose sensitive security information. Suppose, for 
example, that Microsoft devises two different versions of a 
Communications Protocol, and deems that it will use one version if 
the last bit of a site's secret cryptographic key is `0', and the 
other if the last digit is `1'. This means that if you know which 
protocol is being used, you know information that can help 
compromise this key (if you think one digit isn't enough 
information, suppose they have 1024 different versions, which will 
tell you 10 digits of the key, or 2-20 versions, which will tell you 
20 digits, or whatever you like-- different versions could be as 
simple as including a different version number in the protocol's 
messages). The point is that, by III.J.1.a, Microsoft would be 
justified in refusing to document the Communication Protocol in 
question, as it would certainly compromise the security of the key 
used. And, again, this can be used to prevent disclosure of *any* 
protocol, whether related to security or not.
    While these scenarios may seem far-fetched, we must consider 
past actions of the company. For example, when faced with an order 
to distribute a version of Windows ``95 without Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft distributed a deliberately broken version. It is certainly 
not difficult to believe that the same company would resort to 
schemes such as these if it felt it would protect its illegally-
maintained Windows monopoly.
    I would urge the court to take action to prevent such loopholes. 
For example, it could hire a team of experts to look for any 
possible way the spirit of the agreement can be circumvented. The 
definitions, particularly those relating to middleware and operating 
system should be broadened. Finally, a list of underlying principles 
should be included with the judgment so that if any loopholes still 
remain, the Technical Committee and the Court will be able to 
disallow such evasions.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Barnes
    [email protected]
    4756 U Village P1 NE #239
    Seattle, WA 98105



MTC-00014443

From: Les Weber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:15am
Subject: settlement of Microsoft case needs to be toughened
    I, as a software professional believe that the settlement terms 
against Microsoft definitely need to be made tougher. Microsoft 
definitely needs to include a non-Microsoft modified version of the 
Java run-time environment on new OS's. Other settlement terms 
brought up by the state's law suit also need to be implemented. -- 
--
    Adventure is not outside a man; it is within. David Grayson
    Les P. Weber, B.S., B.S.E.E. Weber Engineering Associates, Inc. 
``Software & System Crafters''
    Voice--Office--507-625-5021



MTC-00014444

From: Chris Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am very pleased that the Department of Justice has finally 
found that Microsoft is the ``800 pound gorilla'' that bullies the 
pc industry. I am not certain of the monetary loss that will be 
incurred by Microsoft in this ruling but as an Apple Macintosh user 
that uses Microsoft software daily, I can verify that the actions 
that Microsoft has taken against Apple, Netscape, Sun, and other 
OEMs have been ignored far too long. I was concerned that 
Microsoft's first proposal by Microsoft (of providing public schools 
with Windows / Intel-based pcs and Microsoft software) would be a 
direct infringement on non-Microsoft manufacturers and software 
developers. It pleases me to know that this proposal was declined.
    Microsoft is solely responsible for slow development of software 
and hardware by third party vendors because of Microsoft's monopoly 
in the operating system market and ati-competitive practices. The 
entire personal computer industry as well as the end-user suffer as 
a result of Microsoft's actions. Microsoft should be punished 
accordingly.
    Microsoft should pay Netscape and other such vendors and 
manufacturers a substantial amount for their anti-competitive 
practices against them.
    Chris Mitchell



MTC-00014445

From: Judy Hageman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:17am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust suit
Attention: Renata Hesse
Judge Kolar Kottely
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Judge Kolar Kottely:
    I am writing to convey my opinion that the settlement developed 
by the U.S. Department of Justice to end the anti-trust suit against 
Microsoft should be approved.
    I feel the case has been going on far too long and has consumed 
enough of our state and federal tax dollars. I am a Kansas taxpayer 
that is extremely displeased that our state has not joined the DOJ 
in working to settle the case. It upsets me that my state tax 
dollars are continuing to be spent on this suit, even with a worthy 
settlement proposal on the table.
    As a federal taxpayer, I wish we had the millions of dollars 
spent on the case, back in our hands.
    But at least the Bush Administration is smart enough to cut bait 
on the fishing expedition Janet Reno started.
    I urge you to look closely at the merits of the settlement, and 
then at the continued costs to all parties for continuing the suit. 
I am confident on both counts, you will decide that settlement is 
the best option.
    Sincerely,
    Judy Hageman
    McPherson, KS
    [email protected]

[[Page 25945]]



MTC-00014446

From: John Prezkop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What is wrong with the settlement-settle it and be on with it! I 
don't think any public consumers have been hurt anyway. It looks 
like a case of ``crybaby'' competitors who got the government to do 
something they could not do themselves and now a bunch of greedy 
holdout states who want to squeeze Microsoft for as much as they 
can. Settle this unjustified farce now!
    John Prezkop-Wheeling, WV



MTC-00014447

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This letter is written in defense of Microsoft in it's current 
anti-trust case. Below I will briefly outline the reasons for my 
support, and hopefully provide a sound basis for why anti-trust laws 
as such should be done away with.
    I use Microsoft in nearly every application of computing. I use 
Microsoft Windows(r) XP(tm) for my operating system, I prefer 
Microsoft Internet Explorer(tm) to other web browsers, I connect to 
the Internet using MSN(r), and I develop applications using 
Microsoft's Visual Studio(tm) software. All of these programs offer 
enormous benefits over their competitors because they are made to 
work together, besides the fact that they are developed by some of 
the brightest minds in the software and hardware industry.
    Where would the home office be without Microsoft Office(tm)? 
Microsoft has led the way in productivity software, including more 
and more innovative features into everfy subsequent release. What 
other operating system allows as much universality as XP? I couldn't 
tell you.
    Microsoft is not ``exploiting defenseless victims.'' They are 
simply offering software that can be a tremendous benefit to any 
individual who chooses to buy it. ``Bundling'' products such as IE 
doesn't cause ``serious problem concerning competition,'' unless you 
consider a companies benevolent policy of giving away some of it's 
best software for free is a ``problem.'' I actually wish more 
Microsoft software would be bundled with Windows, so that the 
software could be more tightly integrated to the core functioning of 
the operating system, allowing more features like drag-and-drop CD 
burning to come into existence. If I become dissatisfied with 
Microsoft's products, I will look to the market for more choices, 
which there will always be as long as capital is free to flow. And 
if an extremely large company starts trying to produce products of a 
lower quality, capital, not government intervention, is what will 
fix the problem best.
    By the nature of this case, I am quite suprised actually at the 
incessant call to ``protect the consumers,'' when, this case was not 
brought on by consumers at all, but by unsuccessful competitors 
envious of Microsoft's success. Pandering to envy is not the purpose 
of a court of law, especially not in a free country. Any judgement 
handed down should call not Microsoft, but the instigators of the 
trials, to pay fines. It is Sun, Apple, and Netscape who should pay 
for the cost of the legal preceeedings and it is they who should pay 
retribution to Microsoft for the incalculable damage done to both 
it's reputation and it's stock.
    But that is not the important factor. Hours could be spent 
discussing the objective value of Microsoft's software, the alleged 
harm bundling has done to competition, or even an important issue 
like the very Constitutionality of anti-trust laws. But what is 
important is: Does Microsoft have the right to control it's own 
property? If in this land there is still an inalienable right to 
``life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness,'' then how can 
anyone--especially a Justice charged with protecting those rights-- 
attempt to call the law down on an organization that promotes 
exactly that? Man must still live by his mind, and therefore must 
have right to the product of his mind in order to survive. Man is 
still a being of spectacular power, but that power lies within his 
mind. And in sight of this call by the highest legal authority of 
these United States of America, the nation based on the principle of 
individual rights, I must quote a most appropriate quote from Thomas 
Jefferson, ``I swear. . . eternal hostility to every form of tyranny 
over the minds of man.'' In respect of the very person of whom I 
just quoted, and in honor of the principles in which he helped erect 
in this country to allow men, such as those who run and own 
Microsfot, to pursue their own happiness and achieve their own 
lives, I ask you to throw down any considerati on of fining 
Microsoft in any way for the name of this mockery of the very 
principle of justice that you call anti-trust.
    Sincerely, and to the best within us all,
    Anthony Raymond Bullard
    President, The Dashul Institute
    Founder, President, and Owner, Bullard Enterprises
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,letters@capitalis.



MTC-00014448

From: Mark Suter
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Suter
6023 Meadow Lane
Bakerstown, Pa 15007
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Suter



MTC-00014449

From: John L. Carlson
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John L. Carlson
4506 W. 117th St.
Alsip, IL 60803-2220
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 L. Carlson



MTC-00014450

From: Brian Walker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Walker
P.O.Box 26
Windermere, FL 34786-0426

[[Page 25946]]

January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Brian F. Walker



MTC-00014451

From: Carol Aumack
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/21/02  9:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Aumack
760 Kerry Downs Circle
Melbourne, Fl 32940
January 21, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Aumack



MTC-00014452

From: Donald W. MacVittie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:14am
Subject: Proposed
Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    As a professional software developer and a freelance technology 
writer, I feel the need to write concerning the currently proposed 
settlement. From an historical perspective, Microsoft as an entity 
has been beligerent and hostile to court orders. There is no reason 
to believe that this attitude will change. A simple review of the 
number of contempt cases Microsoft has been a defendant in makes 
this trend clear. With this in mind, I firmly believe that any 
settlement that leaves Microsoft intact is a disservice to the 
public at large. I do not mean to disparage the items included in 
the proposed settlement, I just don't believe they can be effective.
    The only solution that I feel is guaranteed to stop Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices and allow the computer industry to 
progress beyond Microsoft's limited vision of the future is to split 
the company into at least three (3) separate entities. At a minimum, 
the company should be split into ``desktop systems'', ``server 
systems'', and ``development tools''. All communications between 
these organizations would have to be at the level that current 
competitors are given access.
    I believe in an open and competitive market. I believe that the 
government should be business friendly. I just do not feel that the 
interests of a single big-business are the best interests of 
business in general.
    Thank you for your time,
    Don.
    Donald W. MacVittie
    [email protected] [email protected]@wpsr.com



MTC-00014453

From: Jed Singer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:47am
Subject: One voice
    It seems ludicrous to me that they might receive a 
``punishment''/settlement that is, in effect, an excuse to make 
inroads into education, one of the few markets that they do not grip 
in a stranglehold.
    The only people I know who are supportive of Microsoft and its 
monopolistic practices are Microsoft employees, and even most of 
them with whom I am acquainted are more ashamed of their company 
than anything else. As far as I can tell, it is the will of the 
people that something --significant-- be done to diminish their 
power; as it is, they abuse this power:
    * by willfully disregarding well-established standards of 
information technology that have been formed by consensus of many 
and then forcing others to comply with their new proprietary 
creations
    * and by spreading uncertainty, fear, and doubt in the minds of 
consumers, leading them to purchase Microsoft's products when in 
many cases their are other products that would work as well or 
better and cost less (``Well, I really like this other software, but 
it's not Microsoft; isn't that what everybody else uses? If I want 
to be compatible with them, I'd better pay more for something I like 
less. . . '')--Not only are there frequently better/cheaper 
solutions, they almost never suffer from compatibility issues. 
Developers are aware that we live in a Microsoft-dominated world, 
and thus tend not to release products that are unable to function in 
such a world. As I mentioned, it is my belief that it is the will of 
the American people that something be done to put a stop to this, 
though Microsoft has in the past attempted to argue otherwise 
(through numerous well-documented rigged surveys and imaginary 
statistics they have concocted). I urge you, as the arm of the 
government which exists of, by, and for the people, to take forceful 
action.
    Thank you,
    Jed Singer
    650 Anthony Lane
    Madison, WI 53711
    608 233-2893



MTC-00014454

From: Jim Dykeman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:56am
Subject: Microsoft Case
    Anyone for punishing Microsoft is anti-commerce and should be 
voted out of office
    James J. Dykeman
    Mercer Island, WA 98040



MTC-00014455

From: Sullivan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO:
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    RE:
    Microsoft Settlement
    As a US taxpayer and freedom-loving citizen, I urge you to 
settle the case against Microsoft as quickly as possible, with NO 
fines, damages, or other punishment of Microsoft.
    Like millions of other individuals across the country, I use 
Microsoft products daily, both at home and in my office. I use these 
products of my own free choice--I don't need the government to tell 
me what I should or shouldn't have on my computer, and I resent 
myself, or any other private individual, being characterized as some 
kind of helpless victim of corporate power.
    Corporate power is actually financial strength; it comes from 
creating products for people to buy and use, and a company remains 
viable only so long as it provides useful products that many people 
choose to buy. Unless it is granted special favors by the government 
(which is improper), the only

[[Page 25947]]

power a company has is to offer opportunities--in the form of 
products and services--to anyone wishing to avail themselves of the 
opportunities.
    The U.S. government should protect the property rights of 
companies--not try to limit or redistribute their property because 
less successful competitors resent their market prowess. The 
government should protect free trade, and should laud and protect 
the accomplishments of companies like Microsoft. It is immoral to 
punish the successful for being successful! The entire anti-trust 
concept is an abomination: it is antithetical to capitalism and free 
trade--and to the United States of America.
    Thank you for considering these thoughts.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel T. Sullivan, DDS
    St. Louis, MO
    [email protected]



MTC-00014456

From: Alan Naisuler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to oppose the DOJ's proposed settlement and in 
favor of the Litigating States'' Remedial Proposals.
    I am a professional Windows software developer with 30 years of 
software experience and having first written Windows code in 1985 
when it was first introduced.
    I am disappointed by the DOJ's:
--technical naivete
--reversal of direction once the Republican administration took 
office
--Ashcroft's public declaration to quit the litigation BEFORE 
starting settlement negotiations with Microsoft
--failure to see Microsoft's incredible drive to dominate and 
monopolize
--warning the judge not to rule more in their favor than the 
settlement agreement.
    Microsoft's marketing behavior is criminal but I will not get 
into that now. However, I need to be protected from it.
    I wish to dispute the specific claim by Microsoft that Internet 
Explorer browser can not be detached from the operating system 
without harm or hindrance. It is my professional opinion that this 
is baloney and is a prime example of Microsoft's bold lies to the 
technically inexperienced. First, please find below a section of a 
1996 Microsoft technical article aimed at Windows developers / 
programmers such as myself. This article bragged about the 
technology and expertise that Microsoft had used in ushering in the 
brave new (Microsoft) world in which everyone could write software 
that could easily and efficiently interface with other software. But 
when Netscape and Java came along (about that time), Microsoft's 
API's, DLLs, COM, ActiveX, and (later) .NET crap somehow could NOT 
permit Microsoft to detach IExplorer from the OS and put it on an 
equal footing with third party software. As a Microsoft Windows 
developer (from 1985), I am saying that this is bull&%$ and I think 
the DOJ needs to hear it.
    Second, Bill Gates has recently and suddenly got religion 
relative to security, privacy and viruses. I have enclosed below a 
short article concerning his new interest in the subject. The 
Internet Explorer, as should all Internet client programs, must be 
separated from the operating system with a clean divide between the 
two. Only this would permit commands and data to be monitored as 
they enter and leave the computer from / to the Internet. Security 
has always demanded that the browser be separate. It is pitiful that 
I am trying to convince someone in the DOJ of this. What is your 
real job? You can't be qualified for judging this. If you bothered 
to ask an expert, you would have been told this long ago.
    Microsoft should be broken up. If Judge Jackson had not given 
the interview, they would have been broken up. If the DOJ had not 
become so politicized, then they would have been broken up. However, 
at this time, I am asking for the Litigating States'' Remedial 
Proposals to be adopted.
    Thank you.
    Alan Naisuler, MSEE
    acn: here is a section of a tech article from about the time 
Microsoft was blocking Netscape from installing its browser. Note 
how they describe the easy and free process of having third parties 
plug their software into applications written with Microsoft 
technology. That was until someone wanted to plug into their 
operating system. It shows how Microsoft is lying when they claim 
Internet Explorer had to be hard-wired into the OS.
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-
us/dnolegen/ht
    ml/msdn_aboutole.asp
    What OLE Is Really About
    Kraig Brockschmidt
    OLE Team, Microsoft Corporation
    July 1996
    Kraig Brockschmidt is a member of the OLE design team at 
Microsoft, involved in many aspects of the continuing development 
and usage of this technology. Prior to holding this position, he was 
a software engineer in Microsoft's Developer Relations Group for 
three years, during which time he focused his efforts on OLE, 
versions 1 and 2, and produced the books Inside OLE 2 and Inside 
OLE, 2nd Edition for Microsoft Press(R). He has worked at Microsoft 
since 1988. . . . 
    To be used successfully, component software requires that 
applications always check on what components exist when they need 
them, instead of assuming there is only a limited set. When a new 
component is added to the system, it should become instantly 
available to all applications, even those that are already running. 
For example, consider a word processor that has a ``Check Spelling'' 
menu command whose implementation relies on the existence of a 
suitable spell-checker component. If a newer and better component is 
added to the system, that application can immediately take advantage 
of it the next time the user clicks that menu item.
    A system that supports component software must therefore support 
a generic ``service abstraction''?that is, an architecture that 
defines how all types of components appear and how they are 
manipulated. In addition, the architecture must be extensible, so 
that a new component category (as opposed to an implementation of an 
existing type) can be introduced without having to revise the 
architecture. This is the problem of creating an extensible service 
architecture. For instance, it might be easy to define an 
architecture that accommodates components that provide content for 
compound documents, but can that same architecture accommodate later 
specifications for custom controls? In other words, the architecture 
must expect that new component types, or categories, will be defined 
later on. The other big problem that such an architecture must solve 
is that of ``versioning.'' It turns out that the first definition of 
a component type is easy to manage, as is the first implementation 
of any particular component. The difficulty comes in managing 
revisions to the designs and the implementations over time. COM and 
OLE are the results of Microsoft's experience with such problems.
    acn: it would make good security sense to separate the browser 
from the OS Locking Windows
    Microsoft Announces Corporate Strategy Shift Toward Security, 
Privacy
    WASHINGTON, Jan. 16, 2002
    (AP) Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates announced to employees 
Wednesday a major strategy shift across all its products, including 
its flagship Windows software, to emphasize security and privacy 
over new capabilities.
    In e-mail to employees obtained by The Associated Press, Gates 
referred to the new philosophy as ``Trustworthy Computing'' and 
called it the ``highest priority'' to ensure computer users continue 
to venture across an increasingly Internet-connected world.
    Gates said the new emphasis was ``more important than any other 
part of our work. If we don't do this, people simply won't be 
willing--or able--to take advantage of all the other great work we 
do.''
    ``When we face a choice between adding features and resolving 
security issues, we need to choose security,'' Gates continued. 
``Our products should emphasize security right out of the box.''
    The dramatic change comes after the discovery of major security 
problems in Microsoft products, such as a flaw in the latest 
versions of Windows that allow hackers to seize control of a user's 
computer. Another problem allowed the Code Red viruses to cripple 
hundreds of thousands of computers running Microsoft products.
    Gates also referred to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as another 
impetus to stress security. He noted that events from last year, 
from the terror attacks to the virus outbreaks, ``reminded every one 
of us how important it is to ensure the integrity and security of 
our critical infrastructure, whether it's the airlines or computer 
systems.''
    Microsoft products can be found in almost every government 
facility, from the White House to aircraft carriers at sea. One 
person with knowledge of the change said new products and features 
will be tested for security risks before going any further ? if they 
fail, the feature won't be included.
    ``Things are going to have to go through a crucible, and the 
crucible will be security-first,'' according to this person, who 
spoke only on condition of anonymity.
    Compensation plans of Microsoft product engineers, such as 
raises and bonuses, will also be tied to how secure their products 
are.

[[Page 25948]]

    Russ Cooper, a security expert with TruSecure Corporation, said 
the change occurred in part after a new security team assigned to 
attend every product meeting met resistance from product teams. 
Microsoft has long been criticized for focusing on making products 
more feature-rich rather than emphasizing security and stability. 
For example, Windows XP added DVD player-software, a rudimentary 
Internet security utility and a new instant messaging program.
    Customers could also see a downside, though. Other than fewer 
new features, product upgrades could come less frequently or could 
be pushed back.
    Privacy is also a focus.
    ``Users should be in control of how their data is used,'' Gates 
wrote. ``It should be easy for users to specify appropriate use of 
their information including controlling the use of e-mail they 
send.''



MTC-00014457

From: Andrew Hsi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a concerned citizen, and would like to voice my opinion 
against the Proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case 
currently being considered by the Federal District Court. I believe 
that the proposed settlement does not adequately address Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behavior identified in the Appeals Court, and 
allows for huge loopholes that Microsoft will be able to continue 
their anti-competitive behavior.
    Here is my personal information:
    name: Andrew Hsi
    address: 991 Belmont Terrace
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    phone: 408-730-5796
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Best regards,
    Andrew Hsi



MTC-00014458

From: Milo Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (proposed)
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    As a long time Macintosh user, I find the proposed settlement 
objectionable. As an attorney licensed in Texas, I want very much to 
see a non political, just and fair DOJ.
    I sincerely hope that you keep the best --long Term-- interests 
of this country in mind as you formulate your decision. Best 
regards,
    Milo Strickland #19394300



MTC-00014459

From: Aharon De La cruz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:49am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    MS should be forced to donate $10 billion over the next 10 years 
to several (at least 3) nonprofit organisations which would them 
distribute to the money to the public shools who apply for a grant. 
MS should be divided at least into 2 separate companies one for the 
operating system, and one for it's applications software including 
Explorer and MS Office. MS Explorer and the second most popular 
internet browser (Netscape Communicator) should both be bundled in 
the operating system, like other companies do.
    Aharon.



MTC-00014460

From: J Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Judge,
    I am writing this in response to the request made to the public 
to comment on the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust 
case. I run a software business four blocks south of the now 
destroyed World Trade Center. We are a software consulting firm 
providing our services to various firms in the medical, educational 
and financial sectors. Having worked for more than 15 years with 
both Microsoft as well as non-Microsoft products, I see that there 
are two fundamental differences between Microsoft products versus 
non-Microsoft products:
    1: Microsoft suite of products (front, middle and back-tier) 
helps both us as well as our clients preserve our respective 
intellectual property rights by providing the necessary 
infrastructure/culture for clear, verifiable and affordable 
technical handshakes. In contrast, the culture surrounding the non-
Microsoft products deliberately encourage property theft; witness 
the Napster business model (wherein the artists are short-changed), 
as well as the Open Source Software movement (wherein the 
programming community is short-changed). And all of this is being 
actively pursued allegedly for the furtherment of some Marxist ideal 
where private property is one day, effectively abolished. As our 
nation makes greater and greater commitments to the knowledge 
economy, it is incumbent on the judicial arm of the government to do 
everything it can to preserve and protect intellectual private 
property. Instead what I witness as the essense of the anti-trust 
case against Microsoft is an incredible perversion of Justice where 
the one company that is doing everything it can to help preserve 
private property is being vilified and tortured to death by a 
thousand regulatory cuts at the instigation of incompetant firms 
that have failed to meet market needs (see point 2 below). Like 
Gulliver in Lilliput, Microsoft is being brought down by an envious 
mob eager to despoil it of its proprietary code. And the Justice 
Department is providing all the regulatory rope.
    2: Microsoft products are fundamentally bottom-up and inductive 
in nature; in contrast the non-Microsoft products are predominantly 
top-down and deductive in nature. Induction drives our economy. The 
non-Microsoft firms have fundamentally failed to identify and 
address the inductive essense of creativity and problem-solving in 
the knowledge economy workplace. This is the main reason why they do 
poorly in the marketplace. But instead of identifying this failure 
and correcting and improving their product-suite, they waste 
everyones resources in this bitter fight to bring down the one firm 
that has got it right. The bottom-line is that our clients and 
workers are far more productive with the Microsoft products as 
compared to the non-Microsoft products. The sad fact is that by 
bringing down Microsoft, the Justice Department will have actively 
participated in seriously crippling one of the greatest creative 
engines of our economy. And as history will one day witness, the 
malaise that infects our economy today has much to do with the 
destructive anti-trust action against Microsoft.
    Even as I recall with horror the immense destruction of life and 
property from the terrorist strikes of September 11th, I am afraid 
that the scale of long-range destruction being unleashed by the 
Microsoft haters is far worse.
    John Thomas
    [email protected]



MTC-00014461

From: Tony Ramirez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Madam or Sir,
    After a long and careful consideration on the available 
information,
    I believe that Microsoft Co. should be broken into at least 5 
different companies; applications, desktop operating systems, 
security, games, and Macintosh software. The people responsible for 
the predatory marketing ought to penalized with jail time, & large 
monetary fines.
    The proposed school aid remedy is just a thinly veiled attempt 
to exploit the educational customers. As a teacher I believe it 
would be a great mistake to allow a remedy without proof that 
Microsoft will not be able to continue to dominate the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Ramirez
    [email protected]



MTC-00014462

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement?
    I don't know what the settlement entails, I can only suggest 
that Microsoft is very unfair with their products.
    I purchased a desktop computer with PREinstalled software and 
when I asked for individual programs that are installed already in 
case I have to reinstall, I was refused. I have to get help to 
reinstall ONE program OR use a double restore disk I had to purchase 
for an additional $10 that will remove everything I put on the 
computer since I purchased it and start from scratch. That is NOT 
fair. I should also be able to install the programs I use IN MY 
HOUSE on my computer yet I am told that Compaq and others make a 
deal with Microsoft to NOT give the customer the programs the 
company PREinstalls, that is not fair. WE the public are not privy 
to any agreement Compaq and others have with Microsoft and also 
think it is unfair for a company to act like the program police and 
be a middleman? Compaq and others come with preinstalled

[[Page 25949]]

Internet Explorer, what if you want Netscape . . .  and why do I 
never get a disk to go with Windows or a separate Explorer either? 
Their whole system reeks of unfair practices. I accidentally removed 
two programs and have to reinstall them and was told if I redo the 
system everything will be removed except what came pre installed 
originally. Why do I have to have PREinstalled software, why can't I 
have the disks to install my own if or when I want them installed? I 
didn't make a deal with Microsoft, only with the computer maker to 
buy their product? If they want to include the disks they should 
INCLUDE individual disks they PREinstall instead of eliminating 
them. Dee



MTC-00014463

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    As a taxpayer I strongly object to your wasting our funds in the 
persecution and harassment of a company, Microsoft, who has given 
the consumers many wonderful and useful products and has employed 
many people providing them with a living in this endevour.
    Back off and let the free market operate. Our government never 
seems to be able to do anything correctly.
    Alfred Coha



MTC-00014464

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:28am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
Denise Stage 6340
Bates Crossing Road
Nunnelly, TN 37137-2502
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft,
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following this antitrust dispute between Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice for the last three years, and I must 
confess that I am extremely pleased to see that it has finally come 
to an end. The settlement that has been reached is fair; in my 
opinion, the only unfair thing about this situation is that this 
case was ever brought in the first place. Some people have made the 
mistake of seeing Shunt's work as a load of rubbish about railway 
timetables This nation has entered into trying times both 
politically and financially. Quite frankly, there are more vitally 
important issues facing this nation than the inopportune pursuit of 
this case. This settlement is reasonable. While Microsoft has had to 
make more concessions than was ideal, I agree with the position that 
they have taken to end this suit as soon as possible, and thus the 
acceptance of the rather stringent terms of the settlement. 
Microsoft needs to concentrate all of its resources on innovation 
and the business that has made this company--and thus the American 
technology industry--the worldwide success that it has become. 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 
want to express to you my support for this settlement, and to thank 
you for the foresight that you have demonstrated in orchestrating 
its development. I hope that we can finally put this heinous suit 
behind us and that we can finally focus on the important issues 
facing This nation. Thank you. When Shunt says the 8:15 from 
Paddington he really means the 8:17 from Paddington. The places are 
the same, only the time is altered. But is suspense, as Hitchcock 
states, in the box. No, there isn't room, the ambiguity's put on 
weight.
    Sincerely,
    Denise Stage



MTC-00014465

From: Alan (Earthlink)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Leave Microsoft Alone
    To the District Judge, Department of Justice:
    Enough already! Leave Microsoft alone!
    Competitors are trying to destroy Microsoft, to cut off their 
legs to make others seem taller. They want to destroy it, rather 
than compete. But you are not just punishing Microsoft, you are 
punishing the tens of thousands of individual customers like myself 
who use Microsoft's products to make our lives easier. Everything 
that you are punishing them for is something that improves my 
quality life and saves me time and money. Sun, Oracle, Apple, and 
the other companies who trumped up charges against Microsoft are not 
the Great Protectors of Competition, they are jealous, whining 
destroyers of competition, because they feel unable to compete with 
Microsoft on the strength of their own products and abilities. 
Microsoft's supposed ``monopoly'' will disappear the minute their 
product ceases to be a great product at a reasonable price. The 
alleged ``power'' they have, due to their size, can turn against 
them at a moment's notice, if their product is no longer attractive 
to the consumer. Their size makes them more sensitive to their 
public, because one bad release means that millions of people don't 
upgrade, not just a few, costing them billions in a matter of days. 
They are no more able to offer lousy products with impunity than any 
smaller company. They use their billions to produce a great product 
to serve and keep their customers, no different from a small 
company. There is no ``coercion'' here. I chose Microsoft because I 
like it better than Sun Unix and better than Mac. That's all. That 
could change the day they offfer a better product than Microsoft. 
They haven't.
    If even one of Penfield Jackson's idiotic, destructive remedies 
is adopted, it will be a loss to to us, the American consumer, much 
more than to Microsoft. If you mandate the removal of the Internet 
Explorer browser from the Windows operating system, for example, 
then simple browsing operations will again be fraught with 
unneccessary crashes. Netscape could use the API more effectively to 
achieve a similar integration, but they haven't. Microsoft has to 
publish this interface in order to encourage other companies to 
write software for Windows. They are driven by the market to 
disclose the means by which other companies can write software as 
good as theirs or better. Some do. Netscape has not. They do not 
deserve special consideration for their own limitations of ability. 
One good programmer, like Gates, Jobs, or Torvald, can beat a 
thousand lesser programmers. It doesn't take millions to ``beat'' 
Microsoft, just better ideas and smart marketing. There is no need 
to cripple Microsoft. That just discourages others from trying to 
achieve the same level of success. You are considering crippling the 
system to allow lesser talents to ``compete.'' Would you break the 
legs of all the non-American runners in the Olympics to give ours a 
better chance? Who does that benefit? What do those scores mean? 
They are worthless and tell us nothing about the capacities of human 
beings. Conclusion: Do not punish Microsoft for the mere fact that 
they have been a phenomenally well-run enterprise, as a business and 
as the leader in the personal computer revolution ``Antitrust?'' 
This case is anti-American, anti-competitive, anti-business, and 
opposed to every freedom that we have fought and continue to fight 
for.
    Background Note
    I have worked in the Information Technology field for 23 years, 
none of them working for Microsoft, any subsidiaries, or any of its 
legal opponents. I speak as an experit in IT and as a citizen of the 
U.S., not for any organization. I have followed this case for the 
years that it has dragged on, crippling microsoft and having a 
continuing chilling effect on other technology businesses and 
financial backers. Stand up for our rights and our freedoms. Please 
stop the anti-American attack on Microsoft at once!
    Thank you,
    Alan H. Nitikman
    3480 Barham Blvd, #122
    Los Angeles, CA 90068
    (323) 876-7087
    [email protected]



MTC-00014466

From: victor maldonado
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:24am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Dear Ms. Renata B. Hesse,
    I've read the proposed settlement on your web site and I find it 
to be insulting given the fact that Microsoft continually is allowed 
to get away with not only poor products that are security risks for 
all its users but also for bullying its competitors and forcing its 
user base to waste valuable time just trying to problem solve its 
products. Our government should not let up on Microsoft and settle 
for an inadequate settlement but it should make sure that Microsoft 
is punished more severely than what is now being proposed.
    sincerely,
    victor maldonado



MTC-00014467

From: Greg gosser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:55am
Subject: Microsoft anti trust suit

[[Page 25950]]

    Dear sirs,
    It is in the best intrest of the nation and the world at this 
time to restore faith in the United States economy. The Microsoft 
anti trust suit has greatly damaged that faith and I believe has led 
us to where our economy is today.
    Everyone wants a piece of the pie and everyone is jealous of 
someone elses success so lets stop being petty and settle this case 
showing that the American dream is what it is supposed to be. Rule 
in favor of Microsoft.
    sincerely,
    Gregory M. Gosser



MTC-00014468

From: Ulf Dahlen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I believe a remedy must include breaking up Microsoft in at 
least two parts, where one contains the Operating System business 
only. I can't see how anything less than that will bring back 
competition. I do not think the proposed remedy will have the 
intended impact.
    Thank you for accepting comments from the public.
    Regards,
    Ulf Dahlen
    Sodra Promenaden 25C
    S-21138 Malmo
    Sweden



MTC-00014469

From: Douglas (038) Alice Ku
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir:
    I am sending you a copy of the letter that I sent to former 
President, Bill Clinton 2-3 years ago (see below). It said/says how 
I feel about the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    The provisions of the Antitrust Settlement appear to be tough, 
reasonable and fair to all parties involved. I do hope all the 
states involved settle the case with Microsoft ASAP for the good of 
the consumer, the industry and the U.S. economy in all. 
*****************************
    Copy of letter as follows: *****************************
    As a PC user and consumer, I would like to speak up for myself 
and fellow consumers. I don't think Microsoft has harmed me in any 
way. What I do know is that Microsoft has brought a great deal of 
convenience to my life and that should be applauded for it, not be 
punished because of it. I am so glad I can write you via email; I 
can trade stocks on-line today; communicate with my children and 
friends in a convenient forum; purchase books, clothing on-line, all 
things I would never have dreamed of doing years ago. I love the 
fact Explorer/browser is being bundled with Window's operating 
system. The case filed by The Department of Justice(DOJ) was a joke 
and the ruling by judge Jackson greatly disappointed me. I ask you 
for your kindness to listen to the voice of a real consumer, not 
from Microsoft's rivals only. It would cause a great deal of harms 
to the consumer if DOJ and judge Jackson undo what Microsoft has 
done for the industry and its customer. Please don't let them stifle 
the pioneer spirit that has made America what it is today and 
further, shake the U.S. economy as well as our leader position in 
the tech world. Let's step back and look up at a bigger picture 
instead.
    Why is it that the tallest trees must be trimmed or, in this 
case, chopped into pieces perhaps? Believe me, there are countless 
trees and plants have survived because of their taller brethrens. 
The tallest trees may appear, in some manners, to monopolize certain 
elements like the sun, the air, the water, but at the same time they 
shelter those underneath them from those same harsh elements. For 
those who do not care for the shade, go find their own grounds and 
plant their trees. They can get all the sun, air and water they 
wanted. Do you think they won't complain about being discriminated 
for not getting any shade? Fair competitions, in my eyes, should 
encourage other companies to come up with better products and to 
convince industries and consumers to adopt it. Fair competition 
should not result in us burning our forest down.
    Who did Microsoft go to cry to 25 years ago about rivals such as 
IBM? As you know, Microsoft did not go to DOJ. You know why? The 
reason is that Microsoft was not, and has not been, a cry baby, 
unlike some of its competitors. Microsoft won the market over by 
presenting a practical, quality product, which is what I call a fair 
competition. Success is a long hard road. Those companies that 
wished to grab it overnight, have been very disappointed. Even 
worse, they wanted to grab the market by tightening up Microsoft's 
arms and legs through DOJ. Do you call that a fair competition? 
Shame on those companies. What is this so-called ``Most Favorable 
Trade Partner of the U.S.''? Can you explain why Microsoft is not 
allowed to give a better price to its preferred business partners? 
Why the bulk buyer almost always gets better rate? Is the U.S. 
government, as well as these other manufacturers, above the law 
while Microsoft seems to be penalized for what seems to be nothing? 
Why can supermarkets and department stores offer special discounts 
to their members and preferred customers? Why is Microsoft being 
punished for what is commonly accepted practice? Besides, contracts 
are supposed to be signed by both parties upon agreement. I assume 
it is done through the legal departments of both companies. One can 
always say no. Why is Microsoft being blamed for another party's 
assent to a contract?
    I dropped AOL as my internet service provider in the fall of 
1999 after signing up with them for four or five months. The reason 
I discontinued the service was due to the fact that I was 
disconnected from the system constantly while browsing. I had 
contacted their Tech Support Unit a number of times but never 
received a satisfactory resolution to my problems. To be perfectly 
honest with you, I just got tired of dealing with it. I am with 
another internet service provider now and very happy with it. I wish 
Mr. Case would spend more energy in improving his own business and 
products and focus on providing quality customer service rather than 
placing blames on to his rivals for his loss in market share.
    One last message for the representatives of the nineteen states:
    Thank you for looking after the benefits of the consumers in 
your respective states. Don't you think your states have collected 
enough sales tax from the sales of Microsoft products? The amounts 
you have claimed that Microsoft overcharged consumers, I believe, 
they should be refunded to the consumers who actually paid for 
purchasing of the products, and should not be held onto by the 
state. The states should refund consumers for the overpaid sales 
taxes generated by Microsoft product sales accordingly.
    Just as a side note, I would like you to know that I bought 320 
shares of Microsoft stocks last summer to show my support to the 
company. I still own the shares. I wish I owned more to show more 
support.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Alice Ku



MTC-00014470

From: Sue Lann
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  2:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sue Lann
1127 SE Dale Street
East Wenatchee, WA 98802
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Sue Lann



MTC-00014471

From: Mayumi Morita and Rob Ahad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:17am

[[Page 25951]]

Subject: Legislate Microsoft
    Microsoft is a giant in the software industry, more than 20 
times larger than the nearest competitor. They can not increase 
market share except through expansion into new and emerging high 
tech markets. This is a high stakes game and Microsoft is holding 
most of the cards. There is no way they won't stack the deck in 
their favour without government intervention. That is a fact, plain 
and simple.
    First off, Windows must be open equally to all parties writing 
software for the platform. Microsoft developers of applications must 
not be allowed to have months (an eternity in high-tech) with the 
operating system before competitors get a crack at it.
    Second off, the operating system must not be allowed to be tied 
to PC sales. All PC makers must be free to offer any or no operating 
system without fear of retaliation from Microsoft.
    Third off, there should be transparent access to all Microsoft 
``features'' in Windows upon installation and afterwards. The 
unsophisticated user has no idea how to turn off Microsoft sponsored 
``Favourites'', for example. It often takes weeks to figure out how 
to turn off a ``ault'' link.
    There is obviously much more. But I think I've made the main 
points. Essentially, the operating system must not be tied to 
anything not directly related to turning the computer into an 
appliance.
    Thanks for your attention.
    Rob Ahad



MTC-00014472

From: E. T. Harrison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
104 Ivy Ridge Place
Jacksonville, NC 28540
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing with regard to the settlement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department in November. I support 
the settlement, as it will allow the government and Microsoft to 
stop wasting resources on a three-year old battle and get back to 
doing what they each need to be doing, winning the war, fixing the 
economy, getting rid of the last administration's thinking (sic); 
and for Microsoft, producing good software.
    The settlement represents an opportunity for the country and 
Microsoft to move forward. Microsoft has made significant 
concessions and the government negotiated a strong agreement. 
Microsoft will, for example, share information with its competitors, 
which will allow them to place their own programs on the Windows 
operating system. Any concerns about Microsoft shirking their 
responsibilities should be alleviated because Microsoft agreed to an 
oversight committee to be formed by the government.
    I support this settlement, and look forward to seeing this case 
come to a close.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Harrison
    Major of Marines, Ret.



MTC-00014473

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement comments
    Dear Sirs,
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
    I find the current proposed settlement to be nothing but an 
ineffectual slap on the wrist for Microsoft. I think Judge Penfield 
should have split the company into two. Operating System and 
Applications. Seemed very fair to me.
    Since the above is now unlikey to happen, there needs to be 
harsher restrictions in the new proposed settlement. To be brief:
    Most important:
    Removal of Internet Explorer and $$$compensation to Sun 
MicroSystems. Removal Of Media Player and $$$compensation to Real 
Networks . . . .and the list goes on.
    Next:
    Open up full documentation of ALL Microsofts API's to Software 
Developers.
    I'm so tired of Microsoft shutting down my software with each 
new Service Pack or Revision.
    Thank you.
    Steve Hoverson
    2671 Belvidere Ave. SW
    Seattle, WA 98126



MTC-00014474

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:13am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I am glad to see some action being taken. Microsoft has been 
trying to convert the internet, set up on open/``public domain'' 
standards such as TCP/IP network protocols, HTML and JavaScript, as 
well as ``semi-public'' ones like Java, into it's own private domain 
by means such as forcing proprietary standards into networking and 
web browsers. Reading through as much of the documentation that I 
did, I may have missed it, but is there anything addressing 
Microsoft getting into the cable and web-portal business? Wasn't 
AT&T ordered to spin off the ``Baby Bells'' (local phone service) 
when they wanted to go the opposite direction, from 
telecommunications into cable and computers? This last point may be 
irrelevant in light of mergers such as AOL-Time-Warner [-Netscape], 
but the other large semi-monopolies aren't trying to make the 
internet proprietary. . .  at least so blatantly.
    Thanks for protecting Freedom of Communication,
    Johnathan Brown
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014475

From: patsymoose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
689 Mineral Hill Lane
Henderson, Nevada 89015
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Windows user and fan of Microsoft, I am writing to express 
my interest in the antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US 
department of Justice.
    First off, I believe Microsoft should be allowed to keep on 
innovating and growing at a rate similar to the last decade. They 
have set the standards for product and service growth, and should 
not be punished for that. They have also made computers more 
friendly and compatible for many users I know that were unable to 
navigate through older operating systems.
    The recession has left its mark, and I believe that the 
technology sector should be left alone to do its business. I look 
forward to seeing Microsoft once again innovate change and I hope no 
further litigation is brought against them. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Klein
    Sharon Klein
    cc: Senator Harry Reid
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014476

From: Mark Millard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This progresses from my details to my generalizations. But I've 
kept it very short.
    I own a Macintosh at home and use PCs at work. (I'm a software 
engineer.) I own Microsoft Office at home because of work. I also 
use a Microsoft track-ball at home. Internet explorer is shipped 
with Mac OS. That is about it at home for Microsoft products. At 
work I use Windows 2000, Visual C++, Microsoft Office, and so on. 
The list here would be rather long.
    In all cases the software (and hardware) is useful to me. I had 
many alternatives as did the company I work for. The Microsoft 
products fit well where they were chosen. They work together and 
with non-Microsoft product also in use. As a consumer I have 
benefited from Microsoft products. So has the company I work for. 
The same is true of non-Microsoft products of various kinds that we 
use, some of which compete with Microsoft products.
    As best as I can tell from all the reading about this case, 
including parts of the published court findings, this case is about 
generally successful (but not as successful) companies wanting to 
use Microsoft's context to their advantage without meeting the terms 
Microsoft wants for such. It is also about wanting to block 
Microsoft from benefiting me or the company I work for (and other 
folks) on terms the less successful companies did not want to 
compete with.
    I do not see how I or the company I work for is being protected 
by this. We are not victims. I do see how some less successful 
competitors would be protected from a more successful competitor. 
But I do not see why companies should be protected from each other 
in this manner.

[[Page 25952]]

    Microsoft is using persuasion --instead of initiating force 
against anyone (including fraud). As long as that is the case, I 
find nothing here appropriate to legal sanctions. The law should 
protect persuasion used in one's (or a company's) self interest as a 
right. It should not be a privilege one (or a company) can lose by 
being successful at it, even if wildly successful at it. The 
consequences of such losses for such a reason would be horrible for 
a country that places securing freedom as its purpose.
    Microsoft should not have an enforceable duty to help other 
companies. The same goes the other way as well. --
    Mark L. Millard
    Personal: [email protected]



MTC-00014477

From: Martin Larsson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:36am
Subject: request for information on Microsoft
    Hi!
    My name is Martin and I'm a 17 years old Swedish boy. I'm doing 
a project about Microsoft in school and I would be glad if you could 
send me some information about the case. It would help a lot.
    Best regards //Martin



MTC-00014478

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:29am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Dear Sir(s);
    This case is one in which the ``monopolistic'' practices are 
better for the public.
    With my newest computer at home, without the benefit of fax 
software bundled in, I have had a comedy of errors of purchasing and 
installing separate fax capability.
    This situation reminds me of the monopoly previously enjoyed by 
AT&T in the phone industry. I do believe that we were all better off 
with one giant entity.
    Bring back the good old days! Please allow Microsoft do what 
they do best.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Peter J. Szakacs
    (215)750-1111



MTC-00014479

From: Tom Dupre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:28am
Subject: antitrust case
    I'm amazed at the nerve of Microsoft wanting to offer as a 
penalty, computers and software to the education market. This is 
just a ploy to get into the education market and a major 
disadvantage to other competitors as well. How is this even a 
penalty against Microsoft. I hope the judicial system sees this as 
well and doesn't go along with it. Let the government fine them and 
give the money to the schools and let the schools decide what 
computers and software they want to purchase.
    Thanks for the time, I just wanted to express my views. I feel 
MicroSoft is a big bully and overpowers companies who don't do what 
they want. They have become too big for their own good.
    Tom Dupre



MTC-00014480

From: Scott Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:12am
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    First, thank you for asking for our feed back. It is a rare 
thing that a justice department official would solicit comments from 
the public. Microsoft's offer to supply computers for schools is yet 
another example of the problem. Many of us are baffled at how brazen 
this attempt to push other products out of the eduction market 
appears! In education we have watched this company steal other 
people's work (such as the whole graphical-interface concept) 
without as much as a slap on the wrist. Forcing us to use their 
Media Player by disabling others is particularly nasty, a 
continuation of the browser problem which started all this.
    Thanks for listening.
    Scott Moore
    Music Department
    Gustavus Adolphus College
    Saint Peter, MN 56082
    507/933-6260 [email protected]
    http://www.gustavus.edu/dmoore



MTC-00014481

From: Ken Rick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth H. Rick
312 Warwick Drive
Wyomissing, PA 19610
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    For the past three years, Microsoft's progress in the 
technological field has suffered immensely. Despite this time-
consuming aspect of the lawsuit, I am pleased that a settlement has 
finally been reached. Microsoft is a company that is known for its 
excellence in technology and they should not have been punished for 
their success. Within a timely manner, the Department of Justice 
should bring this case to an end. Included in the settlement are 
several terms to which Microsoft has agreed to change within their 
business practices in order to promote the shift back to fair 
competition within the market. Within these terms, Microsoft has 
enabled computer makers to remove the means by which consumers 
access various features of Windows and replace them with the 
competition's software. In addition to this, select interfaces 
internal to Windows programs are being made available to the 
competitor in order to promote software compatibility.
    In conclusion, I feel that this settlement has come to 
reasonable terms. Both the Department of Justice and Microsoft have 
endured this case long enough. Now, It is time to re-focus on more 
significant matters.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Rick
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Ken Rick
    http://www.dreamplanet.net
    Portal to my USA & Global Web Sites
    ID# 1500399100
    Success is the only option!
    God Bless America
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014482

From: Kathleen Behrens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This is to ask that you give your approval to the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft agreement. I do not believe the antitrust suit 
was right in the first place. I do not think Microsoft was any of 
the government's business. The lawsuit was political brought on by 
the jealousy of Microsoft's rivals. They could not compete in any 
other way and sought to cripple Microsoft. I think it sets a very 
bad example for future companies. We encourage innovation, 
entrepreneurship, but punish the company when it becomes too 
successful.
    Further, from what I understand, Microsoft has given away a 
great deal to appease the Department of Justice. Microsoft will 
share any code or program that Window uses to communicate with other 
programs; Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows operating 
system to the 20 largest computer makers; Microsoft has agreed to 
allow a technical committee to monitor its actions.
    It is time to let Microsoft be. I support the settlement, and 
the end it can bring to this interminable case.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen Behrens
    [email protected]
    830 South 57th Street
    Kansas City, KS 66106



MTC-00014483

From: Jean Naecker
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Naecker
6711 Lunn Rd.
Lakeland, FL 33811-2132
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors 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 25953]]

up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, companies like Microsoft 
can get back into the business of innovating and creating better 
products for consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on 
litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Naecker



MTC-00014484

From: Bond Naecker, Jr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bond Naecker, Jr.
6711 Lunn Rd.
Lakeland, FL 33811-2132
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Bond B. Naecker, Jr.



MTC-00014485

From: Jack Beaudry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
117 Daniel Drive
North Prairie, WI 53153
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter serves to document my support for the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case currently before the 
court. This case has lasted over three years and should be finalized 
soon. Microsoft has agreed to all provisions of the settlement. The 
provisions were developed with a court-appointed lawyer. Microsoft 
will now share information with its competitors, use a uniform price 
list to determine its licensing procedures, and agree not to 
retaliate against companies that will use or promote non-Microsoft 
products. These provisions adequately address all issues stemming 
from the original lawsuit.
    At this point, both the technology producers and the technology 
consumers need to move forward with a formalized settlement to set 
the stage for future development. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Beaudry
    cc: Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.



MTC-00014486

From: Edward Harrington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Department,
    When I think of justice, the Microsoft case does not come to 
mind as a shining example. When market competators are able to drag 
their rivals into court for giving away a product, it is a sad day 
for the cause of justice in America.
    Microsoft has and is the victim of the worst evil in the world: 
Envy. Envy that Microsoft is able to produce the most desirable & 
affordable products in the software markets. Envy that they are able 
to make available many products for free.
    America is supposed to be a country where citizens are free to 
make choices. But the choices should not include plundering the 
wealth of its most productive men & women.
    I ask you to please release Microsoft from this 21st century 
witch hunt. The witch that the previous administration wanted to 
burn was a hagard that conjured spells for all our personal and 
business computers, spells that were time-savers and lefe-enhancers.
    During the Inquisition, witch-hunters tourted its victims until 
they pleaded for their lives. The Inquisitors of today on Capitol 
Hill use the scripture of the wretched Anti-Trust law. With this 
``law'' anyone and everyone can be convicted of practicing the majic 
of Capitolism, just as the inquisitor's tourture always gained a 
gruesome confession just before the execution of the victim.
    The victim today is Microsoft. It has been tourted enough.
    Edward Harrington
    6024 TR 76 N
    Green Springs, OH 44836



MTC-00014487

From: Bridget Carberry
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft
CC: [email protected]@inetgw
January 22, 2002
Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
c/o Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally:
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft in U.S. v. Microsoft falls far short of what is needed to 
put an end Microsoft-s pattern of predatory practices. This 
deal does not adequately protect competition and innovation in this 
vital sector of our economy, does not go far enough to address 
consumer choice, and fails to meet the standards for a remedy set in 
the unanimous ruling against Microsoft by the Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia. Its enforcement provisions are vague and 
unenforceable. The five-year time frame of the proposed settlement 
is much too short to deal with the antitrust abuses of a company 
that has maintained and expanded its monopoly power through fear and 
intimidation.
    Microsoft-s liability under the antitrust laws is no 
longer open for debate. Microsoft has been found liable before the 
District Court, lost its appeal to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia in a 7-0 decision, saw its 
petition for rehearing in the appellate court denied, and had its 
appeal to the Supreme Court turned down. The courts have decided 
that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used that power 
unlawfully to protect its monopoly. The next step is to find a 
remedy that meets the appellate court-s standard to -
?terminate the monopoly, deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past 
statutory violations, and prevent any future anticompetitive 
activity.-'' This proposed settlement fails to do so.
    The Deal Fails to Meet the Appellate Court-s Remedy 
Standards This proposed settlement clearly fails to meet the 
standards clearly laid out by the appellate court. In fact, the weak 
settlement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice ignores 
key aspects of the Court of Appeals ruling against Microsoft. Here 
are several examples of where this weak settlement falls short:
    1) The settlement does not address key Microsoft practices found 
to be illegal by the appellate court, such as the finding that 
Microsoft-s practice of bolting applications to Windows 
through the practice of -?commingling code-'' was a violation of 
antitrust law. This was considered by many to be among the most 
significant violations of the law, but the settlement does not 
mention it.
    2) The settlement abandons the principle that fueled consumer 
criticism and which gave rise to this antitrust case in 1998: 
Microsoft-s decision to bind -V or -?bolt-'' -V 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

[[Page 25954]]

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 to bolt 
financial services, cable television, or the Internet itself into 
Windows.
    3) The deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and 
instead guarantees Microsoft-s monopoly will survive and be 
allowed to expand into new markets.
    4) The flawed settlement empowers Microsoft to retaliate against 
would-be competitors and to take the intellectual property of 
competitors doing business with Microsoft.
    5) The proposed settlement permits Microsoft to define many key 
terms, which is unprecedented in any law enforcement proceeding.
    Loopholes Undermine Strong-Sounding Provisions The proposed 
settlement shows that it contains far too many strong-sounding 
provisions that are riddled with loopholes. Here are several 
examples: ?h The agreement requires Microsoft to share certain 
technical information with other companies in order for non-
Microsoft software to work as intended. However, Microsoft is under 
no obligation to share information if that disclosure would harm the 
company-s security or software licensing. Who gets to 
decide whether such harm might occur? Microsoft. ?h The settlement 
says 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 permits those payments and deals when they are -
?reasonably necessary.-'' The ultimate arbiter of when these deals 
would be -?reasonably necessary?-'' Microsoft.
    The settlement does nothing to deal with the effects on 
consumers and businesses of technologies such as Microsoft-
s Passport. Passport has been the subject of numerous 
privacy and security complaints by national consumer organizations. 
However, corporations and governments that place a high value on 
system security will be unable to benefit from competitive security 
technologies, even if those technologies are superior to Microsoft-
s. Why? Microsoft controls their choices through its 
monopolies and dominant market share, and still is able to dictate 
what technologies it will include.
    Enforcement
    The weak enforcement provisions in this proposed deal leave 
Microsoft free to do practically whatever it wants.
    A three-person technical committee will be appointed, which 
Microsoft appointing one member, the Department of Justice 
appointing another, and the two sides agreeing on the third. This 
means that Microsoft gets to appoint half of the members of the 
group watching over its actions. The committee is supposed to 
identify violations of the agreement. But even if the committee 
finds violations, the work of that committee cannot be admitted into 
court in any enforcement proceeding. This is like allowing a 
football referee to throw as many penalty flags as he likes for 
flagrant violations on the field, but prohibiting him from marching 
off any penalties. Finally, Microsoft must comply with the lenient 
restrictions in the agreement for only five years. This is not long 
enough for a company found guilty of violating antitrust law.
    The Proposed Settlement fails to Adequately Address Consumer 
Needs
    The settlement does not go far enough to provide greater 
consumer choice, and leaves Microsoft in a position that it can 
continue to charge whatever it wants for its products. As a recent 
Chicago Tribune story said: -?If you believe that what-s 
good for Microsoft Corp. is good for consumers, the proposed 
settlement of the software giant-s three-year federal 
antitrust battle is cause for celebration. If you believe that 
consumers would benefit more if Microsoft could no longer use its 
Windows monopoly as a springboard into new markets, you stand to be 
sorely disappointed.-''
    In addition, consumer groups have opposed the settlement. Mark 
Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, 
said: -?Wall Street-s view is that Microsoft-s 
business model doesn-t change. If that-s the case, 
we will continue to be afflicted with the same anti-competitive 
behavior.-''
    Analysts Conclude that Deal Will Not Affect Microsoft-s 
Practices
    Sadly, the proposed final judgment by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice has the potential make the competitive 
landscape of the software industry worse, contains so many 
ambiguities and loopholes that it may be unenforceable, and is 
likely to lead to years of additional litigation. Analysts of all 
kinds have indicated that the weak settlement will not impact 
Microsoft or its illegal practices. Following are a variety of 
examples:
    -?As we have stated before, we believe a settlement is a best 
case scenario for Microsoft. And, this settlement in particular 
seems like a win for Microsoft being that it would preserve 
Microsoft-s ability to bundle its Internet assets with 
Windows XP and future operating systems
    -V a plus for the company. In fact, it appears that Internet 
assets such as Passport are untouched.
    Also, as is typical with legal judgments, this settlement is 
backward looking, not forward looking. In other words, it looks at 
processes in the past, but not potential development of the future.-
'' Morgan Stanley, 11/02/01
    -``The deal -K appears to be -.more, better, and faster- than we 
expected in a settlement deal between Microsoft and DOJ. The deal 
will apparently require few if any changes in Windows XP and leave 
important aspects of Microsoft's market power intact.-'' Prudential 
Financial, 11/01/01
    -``With a dramatic win last week, Microsoft appears to be on its 
way to putting the U.S. antitrust case behind it. The PFJ between 
the Department of Justice and Microsoft gives little for Microsoft-
s competitors to cheer about. -K There is very little 
chance that competitors could prove or win effective relief from 
violation of this agreement, in our view.-'' Schwab Capital Markets, 
11/6/01
    -``This is a spectacular victory for Microsoft.'-'' - David 
Yoffie, professor, Harvard Business School, New York Times 11/02/01
    -``This deal appears to fall far short of what could have been 
obtained in court, and what's necessary to protect the public.-''
    -Andrew Schwartzman, public interest firm lawyer, Media Access 
Project, Wall Street Journal 11/02/01
    -``[The settlement] fails to protect competition in the software 
industry and does not come close to dealing with the problems that 
were found to exist by the District Court and the Court of Appeals.-
''
    -Albert A. Foer, president, American Antitrust Institute, 
Washington Post 11/05/01
    -``This is a reward, not a remedy.-''
    -Kelly Jo MacArthur, general counsel, RealNetworks, Inc., Globe 
and Mail 11/08/01
    -``It looks like the government is giving them a slap on the 
wrist. I find that sad. It won't achieve any of the goals of the 
proceeding.-''
    -Robert Lande, law professor and antitrust expert, University of 
Baltimore, MD Wire 11/07/01
    The strength of any remedy is particularly important given 
Microsoft's growing dominance in the software markets. Since the end 
of the trial in the District Court, Microsoft's monopolies are 
stronger in each of its core markets with both the Windows operating 
system and the Office suite now higher than 92 percent and 95 
percent, respectively. In addition, Microsoft has achieved a 
monopoly in web browsers, and has seen competitors such as the Linux 
operating system fade.
    The Microsoft Monopoly Should not be Exempt from Antitrust Laws 
Enforcing federal antitrust laws against monopolies is not new or 
novel. Antitrust law has protected free markets and enhanced 
consumer welfare in this country for more than a century. The 
Microsoft case does not represent a novel application of the law, 
but is the kind of standard antitrust enforcement action necessary 
to insure vigorous competition in all sectors of today's economy.
    These same standards have been applied to monopolies in the 
past. We do not have one oil company determining how much we pay for 
gasoline, but instead we have suppliers such as Exxon, Mobil, Amoco 
and Chevron competing with each other. These companies were all part 
of the Standard Oil monopoly, which was dissolved because Standard 
Oil was found to have violated the antitrust laws.
    Less than 20 years ago, the nation essentially had one telephone 
company -V AT&T. After the government sued AT&T for violating the 
antitrust laws, the company was broken up, and competition was 
introduced in the long distance business. Since competition was 
introduced into that market, real prices have declined more than 70 
percent, and there has been more innovation in the past two decades 
than in most of the preceding century.
    Settlement is Based on Flawed Economic Assumption, and Sets a 
Bad Precedent
    Some defenders of the proposed settlement between Microsoft and 
the DOJ have adopted the view that settling this case could somehow 
revive the slowing U.S. economy. Their motives are good, but their 
reasoning is flawed. What economic theory holds that

[[Page 25955]]

protecting monopolies is better for stimulating the economy that 
promoting competition?
    In addition, this case will set an important precedent. Former 
Judge Robert H. Bork has noted that:
    -``In settling the most important antitrust case in decades 
through a remedy that will have not impact on the current or future 
competitive landscape, and absolutely no deterrent effect on the 
defendant, the Department of Justice has effectively repealed a 
major segment of the nation`s antitrust laws. Moreover, any 
potential witness with knowledge of anticompetitive conduct in a 
monopolized market has to weigh the potential benefit of his or her 
testimony against the likely response of the defendant monopolist. 
The DOJ's proposed meaningless remedy would insure that no witness 
would ever testify against Microsoft in any future enforcement 
action.-''
    Conclusion
    The end result is that this proposed settlement allows Microsoft 
to preserve and reinforce its monopoly, while also freeing Microsoft 
to use anticompetitive tactics to spread its dominance into other 
markets.
    After more than 11 years of litigation and investigation against 
Microsoft, surely we can -V and we must -V do much better than this 
flawed proposed settlement between the company and the Department of 
Justice.
    Thank you for your time.
    Regards,
    Bridget A. Carberry



MTC-00014488

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:09am
Subject: To Renata Hesse
Mike Causey
Causey & Associates
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am the government relations representative for two 
associations of small business owners in North Carolina. Hardly a 
day goes by that members in either of my groups-Independent Auto 
Body Association or North Carolina Glass Association-do not have a 
dilemma to deal with that has something to do with government, 
either state or federal.
    That is why when I heard about the Federal Register notice on 
the Microsoft case I was interested in expressing an opinion. In my 
view, I hope that Judge Kollar-Kotelly will agree to the settlement 
in this case as quickly as possible so that the parties involved can 
move forward and the matter can be finally put to rest. As I have 
expressed at an earlier time in letters to my congressmen and 
senators, I have always pushed for a speedy ending these 
proceedings.
    Now that Microsoft has agreed to a settlement that will open 
their facilities to an independent panel and agreed to other 
provisions the government wanted in the first place, I see no reason 
for delay. It makes no sense to hold up with one of the world's most 
successful companies from moving forward with new products and more 
innovations.
    I am delighted that this settlement will end years of litigation 
and that North Carolina has agreed to withdraw its state lawsuit. I 
earnestly hope that the agreement is approved by the judge.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Causey
    P.O. Box 16725, Greensboro, NC 27416



MTC-00014489

From: Shapiro, David
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    THE COMMENTS BELOW ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE 
OPINION OF MY EMPLOYER OR ANY OF MY CLIENTS.
    I believe that the proposed conduct-based settlement will not 
produce any effective change in Microsoft policy. Microsoft has 
violated conduct-based settlements in the past, and continues its 
aggressive and anti-competitive bundling practices in a way that 
will result in complete Microsoft domination of all products and 
allow it to continue to improperly foreclose any competition by 
rendering all competition incompatible or less readily available.
    I believe that only a structural settlement has any hope of 
avoiding these problems. I urge the Department of Justice to 
reconsider its settlement proposal and seek instead a settlement 
that may actually achieve results. It is worth remembering that 
Microsoft's past use of anticompetitive practices has allowed it to 
develop such a dominant position in the OS platform and in other 
software areas that even ``normal'' business practices in the future 
will serve only to exacerbate the effects of prior anticompetitive 
practices. --
    David Shapiro
    Dechert
    215.994.2456
    [email protected]



MTC-00014490

From: ddangelo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:13am
    Ladies and Gentlemen, more as a concerned citizen than a small 
microsoft stockholder, I believe the settlement agreed to so far 
among DOJ, 9 states and Microsoft to be fair and good for the 
Country inthese economically uncertain time. Sincerely, Dario 
D'Angelo.



MTC-00014491

From: Peter M Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In reference to the federal settlement with Microsoft regarding 
its monopolistic and predatory practices, I have some comments. They 
can all, however, be summed up in one sentence: The settlement, as 
written, is a bad idea.
    As a long time user of Microsoft products, and student of their 
actions, I have the following comments.
    Fact: Microsoft has been convicted of illegally extending its 
monopoly through the use of predatory practices. These have ranged 
from outright plagiarism of competitors products (as when they 
included source code from Stacker in DOS 6.0, and when beaten in 
court promptly bought up Stacker for significantly less than the 
penalty), to deliberate inclusion of code to decrease performance of 
competitors products (I can recall installing an earlier version of 
Wordperfect Office Suite on a Windows 3.1 machine, a process which 
took over 12 hours to complete. Meanwhile, Microsoft office 
installed in a relatively short timespan.) to deactivation of 
competitors software on installation of MS software (again, a recent 
installation of Wordperfect Office Suite 2000 on my Dell Laptop was 
rendered inaccessible after I subsequently installed Microsoft 
Office). This is not opinion, these actions have been substantiated 
in court proceedings and by analysis of independent software 
developers.
    Fact: Microsoft is continuing to extend its monopoly even in the 
face of legal proceedings. This is a continuation of their behavior 
following the DOJ suit regarding bundling of applications with 
Windows 95- not only have they continued to bundle software, in the 
process moving into competitors markets, but they have increased the 
amount of the bundling (as is evident in Windows XP). While the 
Windows 95 lawsuit was particularly concerned with the bundling of 
Internet Explorer, now a significant number of previously 3rd party 
products are moot- with the inclusion of MS Media Player among other 
software innovation is driven from the marketplace in Microsoft's 
move towards inclusion.
    Fact: The settlement, as presently written, will only serve to 
allow Microsoft to further extend its monopolistic position into 
areas where it does not currently have a strong position- 
specifically the educational K-12 market in which Apple Computer is 
a strong player. The ``donation'' of software and hardware to 
``disadvantaged'' schools will serve only to entrench Microsoft in 
those locations, which will subsequently be directed into the 
spiraling costs of future hardware and software upgrades as 
Microsoft continues to massage its licensing models. The 
``donation'' of software (for which Microsoft will, I am sure, take 
a significant tax deduction using overinflated value for its 
product) will cost Microsoft little and gain it a tremendous 
foothold- this is hardly something which I or any reasoning person 
would consider a fit punishment for illegal practices.
    Fact: If allowed to continue on its current path unpunished, 
Microsoft will continue to extend its presence. Through its .NET 
initiative, redirection of browser page errors in Windows XP/
Explorer to the Microsoft Network and its forays into games (XBox) 
Microsoft continues to extend its reach. As demonstrated by its 
current lawsuit against LindowsOS, Inc Microsoft is still exercising 
its schoolyard bully persona to drive out potentially competing 
products. Please note, the objection here is not to competition- for 
healthy competition spurts development of new products and is of 
benefit to consumers.

[[Page 25956]]

It is to predatory and unfair competition, which Microsoft has 
consistently been demonstrated as exercising, and which stifles 
innovation to the detriment of consumers. With the above in mind, it 
would be wrong to object without offering other options. I would 
suggest the following:
    1)Microsoft be required as a condition of settlement to donate 
CASH amounts to eligible schools, which can use monies to purchase 
whichever technologies they deem necessary.
    2)Microsoft be required to publish their Application Programming 
Interfaces (API's) to ALL interested parties (including those in the 
Open Source community) and not just hose parties which Microsoft 
recognizes as business entities. Note this is not the same as 
requiring them to publish their source code- only the links to 
programs to aid competitors in developing new and innovative 
products.
    3)Microsoft be regulated. Due to its pervasive in the computer 
marketplace, it can legitimately be argued that Microsoft now 
functions more as a Utility than as a software provider. Even in an 
atmosphere of deregulation, utility companies have strict guidelines 
to follow to conduct business- Microsoft, to date, does not and has 
shown complete disregard for previous court rulings against the 
company. Regulation may include, but not be limited to, separation 
of the application and OS sections of the business, which may spur 
development of competing products.
    4)Microsoft be discouraged from releasing incomplete products 
(as reference I cite the huge security hole discovered upon release 
of WindowsXP) by rewriting of liability laws to allow injured 
parties to seek damages in the event they are affected by ``buggy'' 
software. This should, I believe, be limited to software sold ``for 
profit''- extending it to cover ``free'' software such as software 
distributed under Open Source models would only serve to stifle 
innovation.
    Without significant changes to the settlement as currently 
worded, Microsoft will be rewarded, not punished, for actions which 
have driven competitors into niche markets (or out of business) and 
will continue to extend its monopoly throughout society. The future 
of innovation within the software industry is in your hands.
    Peter M. Anderson,
    950 E. Bitters Road, Apt. 107
    San Antonio, TX. 78216
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014492

From: John Opfer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. In my judgment, all of the settlement 
proposals unjustly harm Microsoft and/or its competitors. To do 
justice to Microsoft, I recommend that we look to historical 
precedent.
    The precedent I have in mind comes from the trial of Socrates, 
who was found guilty of the ``crime'' of impiety and corrupting 
Athens'' youth. The Socrates case seems an appropriate model. 
Neither impiety nor ``anti-competitive practices'' are strictly 
definable, but always decided ex ante. Neither Socrates nor 
Microsoft did any identifiable injury to any one--no one but their 
competitors complained (the Athenians who couldn't persuade the 
public to buy their arguments, the software makers who couldn't 
persuade the public to buy their software). And both seemed to be on 
trial for their virtues--competing vigorously with their 
intellectual work, challenging the status quo, and defining new 
standards.
    The proposed settlement that Socrates offered included a statue 
of himself in the marketplace and free meals for life. Similarly, 
let the Dept of Justice erect a statue of Bill Gates in front of its 
headquarters and provide the cafeterias of Microsoft with all the 
government cheese that it can handle.
    No doubt others would prefer to hand Microsoft a cup of hemlock 
and a stiff fine, but I think the verdict of history would be far 
more favorable were less punitive measures taken.
    Sincerely,
    John Opfer
    Dr. John E. Opfer
    Department of Psychology
    Carnegie Mellon University
    Baker Hall 331, Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw



MTC-00014493

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We at 60 Plus vigorously support the free market free enterprise 
system and accordingly emphatically support Microsoft to be able to 
operate in an unfettered commercial environment. Technology is 
changing so fast it is impossible for any one activity to gain a 
monopoly.



MTC-00014494

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let the consumer decide what they wish to buy. Good technology 
will always win in the long run. Settle this thing before we lose 
any more technological advances.



MTC-00014495

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It appears to me to be the most fair and just way to once and 
for all settle this case. I see no reason to contest it.



MTC-00014496

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For G-d s sake accept and approve the settlement and let s move 
on. Don t let the courts do to MICROSOFT what they did to a 
successful and very excellent AT&T !!!!!!!!!



MTC-00014497

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bill Gates brought this county from the dark ages to enlightment 
just like Thomas Edison. He develop one common platform for everyone 
to communicate on. His company develop and marketed the software and 
operating system that everyone utilizes to communicate with. Yes 
there are other platforms that develop off his ideas. But he move 
this county forward in technology jobs and product development.
    Look what his company did. He created jobs that were not here 10 
years ago and not to mention he aAdded to the Gross National 
Product. IBM did not want his operating system. . . .if they did you 
would be taking IBM to task. The federal goverment did not take IBM 
to task for their development of the larger computer systems. Why is 
that? Payoff? Bill Gates is a genius just like Edison or Ford he 
more this great nation forward. Now the Federal government wants to 
take the wind out of his sails. Communication is vital and one 
common vehicle will get us a platform to communicate with one 
another easily. Maybe future wars can be prevented by using one 
common platform. If the federal goverment kills the company who else 
will they kill regarding product development?



MTC-00014499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the proposed settlement.



MTC-00014500

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Technology research and development should be free of government 
interference and regulation. Microsoft had the vision and capability 
to devise and implement its industry to the benefit of the users. It 
would be for the benefit of users of this technology if Microsoft 
were allowed to continue with its further developments without undue 
restrictions. Please give us a break! Let Microsoft go forward!
    Rosalie M.
    Bootz



MTC-00014501

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please *DO NOT* accept the agreement as currently drafted. 
Microsoft has proven many times over the years that they do not play 
well with others. They have leveraged their dominance in office 
applications and operating systems to create a business environment 
with no viable alternatives to their products. We need tougher 
remedies. I support the nine states that wish to pursue harder 
sanctions against Microsoft.



MTC-00014502

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25957]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement is fair on both sides please let us 
worry about issues like getting the economy back on its feet and 
corporations like Enron who managed to hurt many middle class people 
who needed their 401K to retire on.Thank you for your time.



MTC-00014503

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough. Stop spending our tax dollars for a wasted 
effort. Microsoft has been punished enough and so have we tax 
payers.



MTC-00014504

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Will you please let the market place enjoy what they can produce 
rather than let some shortsighted government officials deetermine 
what and how we can buy what we want.



MTC-00014505

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think that the only reason the justice dept. went after 
microsoft was to get attention away from bill clinton and his 
problems. we are independant but are voting republican for all 
candidates. we think they should drop all charges and look at the 
judge who was not fair or impartial.



MTC-00014506

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I THINK THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT IS A FAIR ONE FOR ALL PARTIES 
INVOLVED.



MTC-00014507

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the settlement is fair and is in the best interest of 
consumers.
    Thank you
    Jack K



MTC-00014508

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settement with Microsoft is fair and reasonable. In the best 
interest of the state of Kansas lets drop it and go on. If you don t 
like Microsofts product don t use it we sure don t need the attorney 
general s office to decide which software we use or don t use.



MTC-00014509

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should let free enterprise determine the 
competition levels.



MTC-00014510

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that this Case has gone on long enought. This case is 
hurting the economy the Stock Market technology industry and must of 
all the Consumers. I feel this is a fair settlement. It is time to 
END the case of U.S. vs Microsoft.



MTC-00014511

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It disgusts me when govern ment pursues successful business such 
as Microsoft.In my mind it was a left wing Clintonoid attempt to 
extract money from a legitimate brilliant entrepeneur.Microsoft 
should not incur any punishment whatsoever.



MTC-00014512

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the rest of the states back off and let 
Microsoft keeps on inovating in technology for our future and the 
generations to come. End the anti trust case once for all The states 
are just wasting the tax dollars and they should focus on fixing 
their state problem not the high tech industry. We should keep on 
supporting our companies in order to see that our economy gets 
better for everone and every American. All in all I believe that the 
states should go along with the goverment agreement and move on with 
better things than dragging it on.



MTC-00014513

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The greatest strength of America has been innovations.We should 
indeed settle this case as soon as possible and focus on a much 
higher priorities:Security and restore our economic growth.



MTC-00014514

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We feel very strongly that the present long drawn out trial of 
Microsoft should be brought to a conclusion once and for all. A 
tremendous amount of money has been spent and a reasonable 
compromise has been arrived at by Microsoft and the U.S.Government. 
The American people need to put this mess behind us.
    We need everyone involved in the world of technology to put 
forth their very best effort to bring this nation back on course to 
a strong and healthy economic recovery. We will all benefit--the 
consumer industry and the government.



MTC-00014515

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I totally support the settlement of MS with the DOJ. This 
finally ends a lng litigation process at our tax payer expenses 
which only benefits is to help some poor performing competitors of 
Microsoft. The new administration is doing a great job cleaning up 
the mess created by the previous one.



MTC-00014516

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Competition is healthy for all of us. Illegal activity and undue 
coercion/penalities are not helathy. A free market place will take 
care of those untoward behaviors. Look at ENRON they couldn t hide 
their unsavory behavior forever. Good or bad they lost. Microsoft 
will win or lose based on the merits. The winners must be the 
customers who spend the $ to keep microsoft alive. If microsoft is 
doing something illegal they have to cease and desist or they will 
fall. If they are providing a legitimate product the the customer 
needs and pays a fair market price for so be it. The U S Gov has 
already spent tooooo much suing Microsoft. Get a life. We have more 
importnat things to do. What about guarding against cybercrime?????



MTC-00014517

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft Can not flood the market with their products. In order 
for this ruling to work 75% of the products placed into public 
education must be other than Microsoft products. This is more in 
line of keeping away from a monopoloy.



MTC-00014518

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Recommend acceptance of the settlement. Nothing of substance 
will be gained by continuing--the government is too slow to beat a 
fleet-of-foot company like MS.



MTC-00014519

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft/DOJ settlement is fair to all 
parties involved. It s time to end the litigation.



MTC-00014520

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While some may consider Microsoft monopolistic I believe that 
they have both encouraged and rewarded technologies developed by 
other companies. They have

[[Page 25958]]

done an outstanding job solving many complex applications and 
problems.



MTC-00014521

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Resolve settlement now as agreed to.



MTC-00014522

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A number of state attorneys general reached a settlement with 
Microsoft to bring the lengthy antitrust case to an end. The people 
believe that this settlement is fair reasonable and in the best 
interest of everyone. Accept this settlement and close this case.



MTC-00014523

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is fair. Please end the disruption in the tech 
industry and economy. Microsoft has changed this world with its 
technology and has made it VERY easy and cost effective to run a 
business on their software. Microsoft and all of the Independent 
Software Vendors make up a no small part of this country's and this 
world s economy. This is a good thing! This frivolous lawsuit 
brought by competitors that choose rhetoric and the anti-trust 
courts as a method of competition instead of spending their time and 
money making compelling software is a monumental waste of taxpayers 
dollars and is one main reason for the current economic slump. End 
it now by approving the settlement!! Please understand the enormous 
amount of good that this company has done. As a small business owner 
it is amazingly wonderful to have a ton of choices of software to 
run my business that all work on Windows.



MTC-00014524

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    I am 75 years old ... if I may voice my opinion from the depths 
of my heart strongly feel bring the lengthy costly antitrust case to 
an end would be for the good of the economy and we consumers. Thank 
you for allowing me to voice my opinion. Sincerely
    Mary I Costilow
    Ralph N Costilow



MTC-00014525

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am all for the settlement our priority should be for the best 
of our country.
    susan lai



MTC-00014527

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Time for a settlement and time tolet Microsoft focus on what it 
does best.



MTC-00014528

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement.



MTC-00014529

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the people should make the decisions not the government.



MTC-00014530

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a physicist and extensively use computers. I do not 
technically like all of what Microsoft does. But as Americans we 
need to bring this to an end! The agreement is more than fair and 
freedom is worth much more than what we can get with such improper 
legal efforts as we are now doing!
    Thanks!!!!!!



MTC-00014531

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop wasting taxpayer s money & accept Micrsoft s settlement 
offer. If Microsoft is guilty of anything which I doubt its 
miniscule compared to the debacle of Enron & all the related 
parties. Get your priorties in order & at the same time lets try not 
to make the attorneys the wealthies people in the USA.



MTC-00014532

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been guilty of predatory anti-competitive 
practices and should have been broken up. I agree with the several 
state attorneys general including the one from Massachusetts who are 
objecting to the settlement.



MTC-00014533

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case of U.S. vs. Microsoft is a disturbing example of 
government sponsored extortion-- nothing more! There is no monopoly 
here and there never was! Bill Gates only mistake was failing to 
make large cash contributions to the Clintons and the Dems.--if he's 
done so the Reno Justice department would never have gone after him. 
This country should reward innovation not punish it!



MTC-00014534

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AM STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF SETTLEMENT! Enough time and money have 
been wasted. Please do what you can to make sure that the settlement 
actually occurs.



MTC-00014535

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    That Microsoft is a monopoly is clear. It is proved again and 
again by the lack of competition and the subsequent laziness of 
Microsoft to provide stable and secure products. They have been able 
to set the bar so exceedingly low that most people who use personal 
computers are happy when their computers crash less than usual. We 
all assume some level of instability because we have been 
conditioned to accept their mediocrity. Upgrades are forced 
regularly because the previous versions of operating system and 
applications are so incredibly poor. This seems more of a practice 
to ensure good returns to their bottom line than actually improve 
the quality of the software.



MTC-00014536

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The setlement suggested by the Department of justice is fair for 
both sides. Anything done besides is a waist of Tax Payers money to 
satisfy the personal egos of some individuals. Our economy is 
hearting enough and one thing we need is a software (Bin laden) with 
in our own goverment. The only monopoly that I see is effecting is 
AOL-Time Warner where I can not have a choice of my Internet Service 
Providor in New York Area for Cable Connection and have them keep 
rasing the rates everytime.



MTC-00014537

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a great asset to the WORLD. Just think how bad 
things would be if their were multiple systems. Microsoft has done 
more good than any other company. Spend my tax money fighting the 
ENRON s and Osama bin Laden. GET OFF MICROSOFT s case!!!!



MTC-00014538

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly support the Justice settlement with Microsoft. I my 
opinion this misguided antitrust action never should have been taken 
by the Clinton Justice Department. It is a relief that more 
practical clear-headed views now prevail. Hopefully the new Bush 
administration will be more supportive of our great companies 
instead of trying to

[[Page 25959]]

weaken them. It is not the role of government to intervene in the 
private sector on behalf of companies that are not sufficiently 
innovative to survive in the market place.
    Let's get this matter settled as quickly as possible and let 
Microsoft concentrate on doing what it does best unfettered by this 
litigation.



MTC-00014539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that Microsoft still inhibs competitors in their 
business practices. I don t believe that the remedy is severe 
enough.



MTC-00014540

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear that the people of the United States are tired of 
effort and money being put towards this issue.
    The settlement is fair (if not favoring the U.S. and Microsoft's 
competition) and should be brought to closure by rapid acceptance. 
Please implement this compromise for the sake of the consumer and 
general tax-paying public.



MTC-00014541

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has used predatory practices at the deliberate expense 
of other companies to create a monpolistic situation. Many of the 
judgements that come out of this case will be used going forward on 
new cases and we need to make sure that a precedent is not set which 
allow companies to get away with this type of behavior. It impacts 
everyone of us in many ways. Even a billion dollar fine is 
insignificant to this company and will not justify the multi 
billions thay have made from it. I am also a Microsoft shareholder.



MTC-00014542

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over the past few years our Federal government has wasted more 
money attacking and harassing Microsoft than it spent pursing Osama 
Bin Laden and every other terrorist organization known to man.
    What a waste of taxpayer resources! As long as a monopoly is 
operated by the government it is fine. A good example of which are 
the cable TV and internet services in our local markets. Service is 
only provided in our community by one carrier due to the local 
municipality sanction of only that one provider.
    The city is rewarded with fees kicked back by the provider. 
Costs escalate service is poor no competition is allowed. This we 
are told is fine however because the government sanctions the 
monopoly.
    Competition would of course bring prices down and force carriers 
to provide better service or forfeit business. Microsoft on the 
other hand is one of those many competitors in the market. It prices 
its product to the market accordingly or it s rivals evaporate their 
market share. Prices are market driven service if you have a problem 
is a click or call away. If you ever have requested service you 
would also note it is very efficient and timely. Let s stop the 
nonsense and get off Microsoft s case.
    Microsoft investment in our economy through its employee payroll 
corporate tax and charitable donations are unbelievable. All this 
whining would come to an abrupt halt if they moved there operation 
into Canada would it not? Microsoft is a successful American 
business. How refreshing. Quit wasting our money pestering them!



MTC-00014543

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Granted we have had anti-trust law in America for many years. 
These laws are by their very nature bad for the economic health of 
individuals and the nation. A true monopoly can only persist through 
the power of government. Without that power a company must be 
forever vigilant to competitors replacement technology changing 
taste or need and numerous other possibilities. . .  including 
unsuccessful competitors and their attorneys. Microsoft has done 
everything they could to gain and keep as many customers as possible 
and in doing so have increased the wealth of and improved the 
standard of living of millions of people in this country and in the 
world. And now it seems the governments of the USA and of the 
individual states intend to punish Microsoft. This is moral and 
just? . . .  No it is un-American.
    Sincerely
    Franklin Hill



MTC-00014544

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The setlement suggested by the Department of justice is fair for 
both sides. Anything done besides that is a waist of Tax Payers 
money to satisfy the personal egos of some individuals. Lets put 
this behind us and move on. Our economy does not need to be heart 
more than what it is.



MTC-00014545

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    this case against msft is a farce based on jealousy not fair 
competition. It has cost all involved millions and the only benefit 
has been to posturing lawyers. It is time to stop all of this and to 
allow inovation and business to progress smoothly. If giving 
computers to schools etc can create a continuance of this farce then 
an amount of money to buy competitors machines should be provided. 
It will be interesting to see what happens to the $$$ in the end 
they will be buying Microsoft services.



MTC-00014546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am the Information Systems Manager for a company that 
employees approximately 150 people in Minnesota. I am greatly 
disappointed with the settle between Microsoft and Justice. 
Microsoft is a monopoly and has used that power to the disadvantage 
of the consumer. This settlement does nothing to encourage Microsoft 
to change its business practices and I fully support the nine states 
that are continuing the fight for a better settlement. We use 
Microsoft products because we have no choice not because their 
technology is the best.



MTC-00014547

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this entire lawsuit by the federal government has 
not been in the interest of americans. They have used our tax money 
to pursue a company that has been successful. Had Microsoft not been 
a profitable company our government would not have ever gone after 
them. I believe that those who have been pushing this law suit at 
our expense should reimburse the american tax payers. If this could 
happen to a large company just think what our government could do to 
small companies. We nolonger have free interprise nor can we 
establish a competative business without being penalized. Watchout 
Americans! Who s Side is our Government on? I love America and I 
serve in 82nd Airborne in Cambodia during the Viet Nam War for 3 
years but I think our government is moving away from having the 
purpose of upholding and representing the beliefs and interests of 
its citizens.
    Thanks and God Bless.



MTC-00014548

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Product design and development is necessary to allow us to move 
forward in improving busiess climate and our personal lifestyles. 
Constant and stringent government intervention will not foster an 
environment of technological change and therefore must be limited in 
scope. I support market place competition rather than govement 
regulation.



MTC-00014549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in agreement with the settlement reached between Microsoft 
and the Federal Goverment and numerous other state officials to end 
the law suit filed against Microsoft.



MTC-00014550

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

[[Page 25960]]

Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kotelly It seems that microsoft has been given abum rap no 
matter what the courts attempt to prove. like when your company has 
a patent you have the sole right to manufacture or supply the 
product to the public for X amount of years. . . Right? so no along 
come s Bill Gates who tears down the Ibm monopoly and puts the 
computer into the hands of even my grandchildren age 6 to 13. . . 
.Shouldn t this entrepreneur be allowed to market his product 
against the copycat companies that sprung up from his dream??? I say 
let him and his company make all the money they want and let the 
necomers develop something even beyond the scope and imagination of 
a Bill Gates. Call it progress or the good old american motto of 
building abetter mousetrap



MTC-00014551

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following article sums up my feelings. A Philadelphia radio 
station posed this question. There are two men both extrwmwly 
wealthy. One develops relatively cheap software and gives hundreds 
of millions of dollars to charity. The other sponsors terrorism. 
WThat being the case why is it that the U.S. Government has speent 
more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years than 
Osama bin Laden.



MTC-00014552

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive the goverment is wrong. The old saying down here is: 
Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your 
door. Let those who complain do a better job and they will be able 
to sale more of their product!!!



MTC-00014553

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the whole antitrust litigation disturbing from the 
standpoint that as a software consumer I don t view myself as being 
harmed by Microsoft s place in the market. We run Windows NT Windows 
2000 Windows 98 MSOffice Explorer Publisher etc. And while these 
programs are not flawless they have increased our productivity 
immeasurably for a relatively small investment. There have certainly 
been alternatives to Microsoft products that I could have chosen but 
we felt that the Microsoft products gave us the most for our money. 
To penalize a company for being the best in its industry is un-
American.
    There are no greater barriers to entry in this market than in 
any other. If someone can offer me a better price/performance 
combination with their product then I will migrate to it. Linux Sun 
Oracle are all names that compete with Microsoft but none could meet 
my needs as closely as the products we purchased. The irony of all 
this is that I work closely with an industry that is rapidly 
conolidating and will do far more to hurt the average consumer than 
Microsoft ever will yet this monopolistic drive rolls along with the 
government s blessing. Joel Klein has made a name for himself the 
government has wasted millions of taxpayer dollars the media has 
gotten to bash Microsoft--everyone should be happy.
    I would also think the DOJ has more important things to worry 
about right now. So please accept the settlement and put an end to 
this travesty.



MTC-00014554

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Antitrust law was intended to protect consumers not competitors. 
Sun Netscape Oracle et. al. engage in much the same behavior as MS. 
Why wasn t Novell taken to court when they had the corner on the 
networking market? Maybe the federal gov t should write a public 
domain operating system and office suite and give it away. Does 
anyone really believe you d get meaningful support from the gov t? 
This is just the politics of envy trying to accomplish in the courts 
what they couldn t accomplish in the marketplace.
    My 2 cents.



MTC-00014555

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe it s time to settel the Microsoft matter. It s the 
right thing to do.
    Thank You
    Mark Willis



MTC-00014556

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would prefer that a settlement which benefits everyone be 
pursued. Free Enterprise should be encouraged but with 
responsibility and respect to its competitors.



MTC-00014557

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It's time to get off this non-issue and let the consumer not 
Apple or Sun decide the future of Microsoft!!



MTC-00014558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let it go enough of the tax payers money has already been 
waisted. I would bet that most of the PC in use by the prosecutors 
are using Microsoft products! Without Microsoft the capabilities 
computers have today would be 10 years off still.



MTC-00014559

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the current settlement stand. I think any 
more court action regarding this case is unnecessary and costly and 
would serve no worthwhile purpose.



MTC-00014560

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned that the continuation of this litigation 
will be determental to the economy and in particular the 
telecommuncation and information related sectors. I feel that the 
settlement that was reached was in the best interest of all of the 
people in the US and the failure to reach a settlement could have 
negative impact on our national economy.



MTC-00014561

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On behalf of myself and citizens of the U.S. I would think it 
would be to our best interest to get this settled and get our 
economy going again. I also think that the settlement proposed by 
microsoft is also more than adequate.
    Thank you for your time.
    Chuck Parks



MTC-00014562

From: Schreck, Paul CONT (NASKW 191)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an Information Technology professional, a US Navy veteran and 
a citizen of the United States, I feel the proposed settlement if 
the Microsoft Antitrust case to be a great disservice to the 
American consumer. The proposed remedies are little more than a 
`slap on the wrist'. To truly promote fare competition in the 
Operating Systems/software market, much stricter constraints must be 
placed upon Microsoft. My recommended remedies are as follows:
    1. Open & standardize the Windows API and file formats:
    The Windows API (or ``Applications Programming Interface'') is 
the set of instructions that Windows applications/programs use to 
``talk to'' the operating system. Microsoft provides these APIs to 
3rd party software vendors in order for them to develop applications 
for Windows. However, it's widely known that Microsoft often 
`fiddles' with the API, changing things that break competitors'' 
products. For instance; if a competitor developed a multimedia 
application, which competes with Microsoft's own Windows Media 
Player (such as RealPlayer or QuickTime), Microsoft can easily alter 
the Windows API to allow these competing products to no longer work 
properly. It's also known that Microsoft's own programmers take 
advantage of so-called `hidden APIs' that non-Microsoft developers 
can't use.

[[Page 25961]]

    Microsoft's file formats also need to be opened. That is, file 
formats for it's MS Office applications (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and 
Access), Windows Media format, along with any other proprietary 
formats, need to be standardized and publicized. This would allow 
competitors to build Windows software applications, and operating 
systems, that compete with Microsoft on a level field.
    2. Compliance & adherence with open standards:
    The Windows operating system uses many, ``Microsoft only'', 
proprietary formats and technologies, that make it incompatible with 
competing products. For instance, Microsoft uses an API called 
``Direct 3D'', for all its 3D development/rendering. Direct 3D is 
only usable on a Windows operating system. If an application were 
written using Direct 3D, all other operating systems would be unable 
to take advantage of it. An alternative product such as ``OpenGL'', 
would be a much better solution, as it is vendor-neutral and 
governed by a standards committee. In fact, Apple Computer made 
OpenGL the basis of its 3D API in their new operating system, ``Mac 
OS X''. Indeed, there are many open source/vender-neutral APIs that 
could be used in place of Microsoft's proprietary ones.
    With Microsoft's APIs and file formats fully standardized, 
documented and published, and having Microsoft adhere to open, 
industry standards, other software vendors could compete fairly.
    Regards,
    Paul J. Schreck
    Paul J. Schreck
    Lead Computer Technician
    Naval Air Station, Key West
    CC: `microsoftcomments(a)doj.ca.gov', `attorney.general. . . 



MTC-00014563

From: Roy Steffey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On 1/21/02 i faxed a copy of the letter to Attorney General John 
Ashcroft and a copy to Rep. David E. Bonior.
    signed Roy Steffey



MTC-00014564

From: Kevin Ryan
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/22/02  10:15am
Subject: ``Americans for Technology Leadership''
    As I'm sure you're aware, Microsoft has started an 
``association'' (the title is in the subject line)--actually a 
captive lobby of MS and whoever it could pressure into lending 
names, as far as I can tell--to encourage (pro-Microsoft) comment on 
their case/settlement. At their web site (http://
www.techleadership.org/5010/), they have a mechanism for posting 
comments which will supposedly be posted to the address I'm sending 
this to. Yesterday (1/21/02) I posted some comments disparaging 
Microsoft's business practices, and questioning its commitment to 
software innovation. I thought that you might be interested in 
checking to see if you receive them; I know I am curious, since I 
would not rule out the possibility of filtering in the forwarding 
process. The return address associated with my comments will be the 
same as the one at the bottom of this note.
    The thrust of my comments was that Microsoft got off easy, and 
that it perniciously exploits its market dominance to stifle 
potential software competitors and to coerce manufacturers into pre-
installing its software, and that the overall effect is to guarantee 
only MS the opportunity to innovate, as well as to guarantee that 
they only need to innovate just enough to sell updated versions of 
their products. If their practices aren't illegal, they should be, 
but I know that's outside of DoJ's area of responsibility.
    Please feel free to forward this to any other government 
officials seeking public comment on Microsoft. Be aware that these 
are my own views, not necessarily those of my company. But also be 
aware that I am a network administrator, with several years'' 
experience with Microsoft software, and a good deal of knowledge of 
the software industry.
    Kevin Ryan
    [email protected]



MTC-00014566

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it was fair to the entire computing industry............



MTC-00014567

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to get on with things that are more important than 
exerting regulatory control over Microsoft. I believe Microsoft s 
products and services have benefitted us (consumers)rather than 
harmed us.



MTC-00014568

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There s another issue that no one is taking Microsoft to task 
for. . . that is in regard to the new XP operating system. Users who 
purchased it can be denied use of the product and caused hard 
trouble to get a fix from Microsoft if the software think s you are 
trying to steal it. But that event is so easily triggered that many 
innocent and legal users will experience denial of ujse of the 
product just because they changed components in their computer. It 
is shameful that Microsoft is so protective of the rare instances of 
copying that they put their legitimate customers to so much trouble. 
This copy protection scheme should be required by government to be 
removed or softened so that it is less drastic.



MTC-00014569

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think Microsoft is getting off easy. If it is to go through 
the settlement will GIVE Microsoft an unfair advantage in the 
schools over Apple. I also remember years ago when IBM was trying to 
do the same thing. They lost their case as so should Microsoft.



MTC-00014570

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Well done. Thanks for speeding things up and getting to a 
conclusion.



MTC-00014571

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s a good deal for all those involved.



MTC-00014572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough the settlement agreement needs to be enforced 
without wasting any more time and money to the public. Everyone 
seems to be in agreement that the settlement was fair and I hope 
that no more taxpayers money is wasted on this. Let s get this done!



MTC-00014573

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to settle a lawsuit that should never have been tried 
in the first place. The competition was poor and the claim of unfair 
business practice was fuzzy at best. Close the books on it soon 
please.



MTC-00014574

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has done more for American Industry and the American 
People over the last 10 years than most companies do during their 
entire existance. They offer superb products at fair prices. 
Unfortunately their whiney butt cry baby competition has seen fit to 
enlist the Zealot Federal regulators to further their own causes 
instead of competing on a straight up basis. In my opinion the 
President of the U.S. should issue an Executive Order to the Federal 
Trade Commission & the appropriate Judiciary directing that all 
chargess against Microsoft be dropped and further that Microsoft be 
allowed to bring suit against both Federal & State Governments for 
damages. It seems strange to me that the same regulators that are 
trying to destroy Microsoft are sitting on their hands and doing 
nothing while foreign interests are being allowed to destroy our 
steel industry. I AM AN AMERICAN AND THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND 
THAT WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER BEEN OR EVER WILL BE. 
THE REASON FOR THIS IS NOT FEDERAL REGULATION BUT IS FREE ENTERPRISE 
AND THE HEARTS SOULS AND TENACITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.



MTC-00014575

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25962]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that it is in the best interest of the consumer to 
settle the Microsoft issue. Microsoft has done nothing that is 
against the interests of the public. Wasting more of my tax money on 
pursuing Microsoft to benefit companies like Sun Microsystems and 
others who have difficulty competing because they have inferior 
products. The market will take care of Microsoft. When they fail to 
produce a product that the public wants to buy they will no be able 
to sell it. Going back to the days of multiple operating systems is 
not in the best interest of the consumer and makes programming from 
a professional point of view more of a headache. Settle the issue 
and quit wasting my tax dollars that could be better spent 
elsewhere.



MTC-00014576

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Clearly the original anti-trust action was politically 
motivated. Now we are faced with a hobson s choice.
    Therefore I concur with the proposed settlement.



MTC-00014577

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let s put an end to this lengthy case and prevent wasting more 
tax payers moneies. Thanks.



MTC-00014578

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone and go after some real criminals with our 
tax dollars.



MTC-00014579

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am pleased that the Judge put an end to this long and costly 
suit. I feel Microsoft has made the computer available to the 
average citizen with an easy-to-use product. If the competition 
cannot produce equal or better software that is their fault. 
Government has no place in the supply and demand market.



MTC-00014580

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement seems fair. I would encourage the 
Justice Department to accept it.



MTC-00014581

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the Massachusetts position of not agreeing to the 
general settlement. I think the current settlement favors Microsoft 
at the expense of the consumer compeditors and the American public.



MTC-00014582

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Basically the settlement is a slap on the wrist!



MTC-00014583

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a retired telephone company manager. I feel that the entire 
problem we are having with tech stocks in particular and all stocks 
in general started with the Justice Dept s persecution of Microsoft. 
Why can't a company be large innovative and successful without being 
criminal? It used to be the American Way. This is another of Bill 
Clinton s legacies. Thank God and the Supreme Court that it wasn t 
continue with Al Gore.



MTC-00014584

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is too easy on Microsoft and I can not 
see anything that leads me to believe that it will stop Microsoft 
from doing the same thing again. Already MS has stopped people who 
weren t using Internet Explorer for accessing specific sites. MS 
needs to see that what they are doing is wrong and not in the best 
interests of the public. Thank you.



MTC-00014585

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is and has never been a monopoly. During the Clinton 
administration they saw a company that was extremly succesful and 
the left wanted a piece of that money like usual. They have no 
reason to be involved or break-up divide or try to run their 
business. They have contributed to this economy they pay high taxes 
they have created many many jobs. The case should be dropped not 
settled and the government should pay them a big apology for the 
left wings greed for power from money.
    sincerely
    Thomas R. Hartman
    Arlington Heights Il.



MTC-00014586

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:
    Please let the Microsoft settlement with the government stand. 
It is a fair settlement between the Government and Microsoft.
    Thank You
    Richard Lucas



MTC-00014587

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly endorse the U.S. vs Microsoft settlement. It is time 
to put this issue aside and get on with the peoples business.



MTC-00014588

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the case should be settled as proposed. The settlement 
should bind the other state suits to be settled also. Put an end to 
this and lets get back to busniss.



MTC-00014589

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a personal and business customer of Microsoft as well as 
several other software companies. I would urge the government to 
reach a prompt settlement with Microsoft and accept the proposed 
consent decree. Prolonged litigation is not in the best interest of 
software consumers the public or the government. The original 
litigation and district court decision did little to calm the 
financial markets either. The government should be encouraging free 
enterprise and open competition. The resources expended on further 
Microsoft litigation would be much better spent on debacles like 
Enron.
    Thank you for your consideration of my opinion.



MTC-00014590

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Time to get on with it. There are more important things to 
devote time energy and taxpayer s dollars to than stifling 
creativity. ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT.



MTC-00014591

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Has there been any other company that has done so much for the 
economy and the people of this great country in such a short period 
of time? I think not. Mr Gates created an idea (Microsoft Inc.) that 
has helped us all in one way or another thru better jobs higher pay 
self-esteem and a wider of technological advances thru the use of 
their software. I am for the resolution of this matter as soon as 
possible.
    Thank you.



MTC-00014592

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This case has many issues that blur the overwhelming need to get 
it over with. A fair

[[Page 25963]]

settlement was reached but the states representing the businesses 
that are unable to compete in a very competivite industry are 
seeking to legislate an unfair advantage for themselves. That s not 
what America is all about.
    America is a FREE Market economy. Let the free market determine 
the winners and loosers. The longer this case goes on the larger is 
the damage to my faith in the US legal system to successfully 
resolve this isasue. Enough is enough! Get it over with! Free 
Microsoft of the shackeles that are holding it back from maintaining 
America s leadership in this industry!



MTC-00014593

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    PLEASE DO NOT PENALIZE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS. Microsoft has been 
good for the consumer the investorand America. As a voter and a 
taxpayer Iurge that this matter be settled fairly and speedily. I 
put my faith in the company years ago. Please do not turn it into 
another Enron.
    Thomas G. Lynch



MTC-00014594

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see the Microsoft case settled. It is costing 
the tax payers money and hurting the economy.
    Pete Holland



MTC-00014595

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is Enough. Settle this case now and let the good people 
of Microsoft get back to work.



MTC-00014596

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In reference to Mr. Gates Problem: I think the Federal 
Government went too far in reguards to Microsoft!
    I have heard all my life--build a better mouse trap and people 
will run to your door. I believe Mr. Gates built this mouse trap!! 
The Federal Government should back off Microsoft!! Case in Point: 
Banks are getting together and making a great big bank--This could 
be very bad for the taxpayers if they fail.
    However the Government is doing nothing about these mergers. I 
believe Mr. Gates forfilled the American dream and The American 
Government should get out of his face. I do not believe there was 
any wrong doings--so there should be nothing to settle.



MTC-00014597

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I endorse the settlement called the Tunney Act.



MTC-00014598

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft antitrust case settlement is a 
fair and reasonable compromise and is in the best interest of 
everyone--the technology industry the economy and especially the 
consumers.
    Please support this settlement.



MTC-00014599

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the case against Microsoft quickly and 
efficiently. Do not disrupt this country s technology leadership 
with unnecessary lawsuits or judgements that hamper innovation.



MTC-00014600

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the anti-trust case against Microsoft was political and 
unwaranted. The suit was to protect competitors to Microsoft not to 
protect Consumers. That being said I know other feel differantly. I 
strongly believe the settlement is a good compromise and should be 
embraced. If it is not it could have negative effects on everyone.
    Thanks
    Dave J Berkenbile



MTC-00014601

From: farkus2
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    In regards to the U.S. vs. Microsoft court case, I urge the 
government to seek stiffer penalties against Microsoft for their 
anti-competitive practices. As a consumer of Microsoft products and 
worker in the IT field, it is frustrating to have pc's crash and a 
buggy windows operating system. The consumer can only benefit by the 
break up of Microsoft, or something as forcefull, that would allow 
other companies to compete on a even playing field. For Microsoft to 
own and market the windows operating system and create products to 
run on this OS is in my opinion unfair to competing software 
companies. This advantage I am sure is used to ensure that Microsoft 
products are ``compatible'' and competing software find their 
performance degraded.
    Also having more competion can only drive prices down and 
quality up. Microsoft is notorious for releasing buggy software 
early and then fixing it later. Often selling them as ``upgrades''. 
I wish they would create an OS that would just work well and not 
include all the extras that Microsoft thinks everyone needs.
    Please do not let this company off with a hand slap. Doing so 
would only reward its ruthless behavior.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Marshall



MTC-00014602

From: Edson Mena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC:[email protected]@ inetgw,letters @capitalis. . 




MTC-00014603

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear District Court Judge, M
    icrosoft should not be punished in any way whatsoever. It should 
be honored and congratulated. At the least, the government should 
apologize to Microsoft for persecuting---yes persecuting---that 
company.
    I have been appalled at the government's treatment of one of our 
most productive enterprises. We should be honoring Microsoft for 
good work, for raising our standard of living, for increasing 
employment, for widening the circle of job opportunity, for offering 
at fair market value products that enhance our lives, for 
continually expanding our ability to work and play. Microsoft 
extends each of our lives in countless ways. Microsoft doing its 
business in freedom and without government interference is in my 
self-interest, as it is in yours and each US citizen's.
    I do hope that the Antitrust laws will be abolished completely. 
They work only to destroy our country and its economy.
    Sincerely,
    Sylvia Bokor
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014604

From: Robert Bero
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:25am
Subject: Drop It Sir/Madam:
    As a supporter of free enterprise (and the non-violent exercise 
of economic rights) I recommend the government drop its suite 
against Microsoft completely. I would also ask that the SEC be 
refocused on the task of providing Congress with recommendations on 
how they can eliminate all anti-trust legislation now on the books.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Bero
    Xenia, OH
    [email protected]



MTC-00014605

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Monetary penalties are not the solution for Microsoft. It's like 
asking a farmer who has 4000 bushels of corn to pay the 10 bushels; 
a drop in the bucket. The crime is similar to a illegal monopoly. 
The only solution is to hurt it's market share (of which it's 
illegal acts helped increase). I few suggestions on how this can be 
accomplished:

[[Page 25964]]

    Offer competitor machines to school and have Microsoft flip the 
bill. AKA Apple (computers), Linux and Unix (servers).
    Allow Microsoft to continue current operations but force a price 
increase in the software (a tax that can go towards all schools.
    I don't have all the answers but as a computer use for 75% of my 
life I understand the need to keep a competitive edge on all fronts 
including software. Imagine a software company so powerful that Unix 
Linux and others must be given away free for people to even consider 
using them. Bottom line, it's unfair to the economy to continue to 
have Microsoft operate as they plan. Big changes are needed and I 
suggest action is taken soon. The same issues of which this legal 
battle started with have only tripled in degree from 2+ years ago.
    Thank you for your time and please feel free to include this e-
mail in any documents you may need.
    John Fraser
    Hutchinson Technology
    (320) 587-3797
    x5348



MTC-00014606

From: Dave Doran-Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Without going into a multipage document about Microsoft, I will 
try to sum up by ideas quickly, as you all must have lots to read 
already.
    ?MS is a company that has used business practices in the past 
which are illegal, or at the very least strongarm tactics.
    ? Much of MS's success is derived from it's constant ability to 
twist and stretch the rules to its own good. MS is a machine, based 
on marketshare and $$.
    ? Companies which are innovative have been shut out by MS, 
either by buying them or changing their own products to render the 
innovative ones obsolete, inoperable, or out of the public's mind.
    ?Most MS products work, but not very well. The entire IT 
industry is based on the inability of windows and other MS products 
to work well with others. Look at systems like Linux or the Mac. Mac 
marketshare is 5% or so, but the IT industry supporting macs is 1/10 
that which supports MS products (ie 10 techs to support every 100 
Windows Machines, 1 tech to support every 100 Macs)
    The inherently flawed systems produce a cyclical motion of buy 
MS product, get someone to fix it, buy something else, get someone 
else to fix it. Reminds me of social communes in which factories 
built cars, that there was no market for, then got paid to take them 
apart, then reassemble once more. . . 
    ?Microsoft creates the idea in people's minds that there's 
nothing else out there. In this way, people don't argue to buggy 
software, or pricey upgrades. They have been sold long before the 
purchase is made.
    ? Recently Apple introduced OS X (pronounced Ten). Several 
months later, MS introduced Windows XP. This is a small infraction 
that simply adds to the long list of white lies and ``thanks we'll 
borrow this for a sec'' day to day actions from MS.
    If you bought a washing machine, would you not expect it to work 
for years before having someone come out to service it? Why are 
personal computers different?



MTC-00014607

From: Ganesh and Sashikala Prasad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
23 January 2002
    Dear Sirs,
    I wish to submit my comments (attached) to the database of 
public feedback on the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft, which must reach you before the 27th of 
January.
    I am submitting them in both plaintext and HTML formats for your 
convenience.
    Regards,
    Ganesh Prasad
    Comment on Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Sydney
1 January 2002
    Dear Sirs,
    I am an Australian citizen with about 15 years in the computer 
industry. What happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust case 
affects me professionally as well as personally, since I am a fairly 
heavy user of computer software and technology. I would like to 
comment on the settlement jointly proposed by the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. To be blunt, I believe the proposal is a 
dishonest one that sells out the public interest. I will explain 
why, and offer some guidelines for a fairer remedy.
    1. Microsoft's main crime (not bundling, but the prevention of 
bundling) has had lasting anti-competitive effects that the 
settlement should address but doesn't The argument that has most 
often been used against Microsoft is the ``bundling'' one, the 
allegation that Microsoft bundled its browser (and now its media 
player and instant messaging software) with its operating system. By 
doing so, it leveraged its monopoly in operating systems to enter 
other markets. Though this is a classic antitrust argument, people 
who believe in a free market are not convinced because the remedy 
does not sound right from the standpoint of the consumer interest. 
Consumers enjoy greater convenience, not less, when extra software 
is bundled with the operating system they buy. That is why the 
harsher remedy proposed by some of the states is also wrong. Forcing 
Microsoft to unbundle such software needlessly inconveniences the 
consumer. It also takes away from Microsoft's legitimate right to 
decide what goes into its products and puts the courts in the 
avoidable position of having to define the scope of technologies 
such as operating systems when they are not technically qualified to 
do so. The only parties that are benefitted by such a remedy are 
competitors. Doesn't this add credibility to Microsoft's claim that 
its competitors are inefficient and require government intervention 
to survive?
    However, the prosecution has failed from the start to argue this 
point with the right emphasis. What Microsoft did that seriously 
disadvantaged the consumer was not so much bundling its own browser 
with its operating system, but preventing computer resellers (OEMs) 
from offering consumers a choice by bundling competing browsers such 
as Netscape Navigator. Microsoft threatened OEMs such as Compaq with 
the withdrawal of their Windows 95 license if they dared to bundle 
Netscape Navigator with the PCs they sold. Given the overwhelming 
dominance of Windows 95 in the operating system market at that time, 
a withdrawal of that license could have bankrupted even an OEM as 
large as Compaq. The threat was credible and secured the compliance 
of all OEMs. So certainly, Microsoft did leverage its monopoly in 
operating systems to gain entry into the browser market, and it did 
so both through the relatively benign means of bundling its own 
browser, and by the decidedly illegal means of preventing consumers 
from sampling the wares of its competitors. Any free market advocate 
can readily see the consumer harm in this latter action of 
Microsoft's, but the prosecution has damaged its own case by not 
emphasising this enough.
    Microsoft has also had secret agreements with OEMs that prevent 
them from offering consumers the choice of which operating system to 
boot when they start up their computers. This is often known as the 
``bootloader clause''. Microsoft abused its monopoly in operating 
systems by threatening OEMs and blocking, at the source, the entry 
of other operating systems into the market. Consumers have had no 
opportunity to know about or sample competing operating systems. In 
other words, Microsoft abused its operating system monopoly to 
maintain that monopoly, which is another violation of antitrust law. 
The fact that no OEM except IBM dared to testify against Microsoft 
during the trial is itself proof of Microsoft's terror tactics. 
Their silence speaks louder than any testimony.
    Microsoft's history is full of such anti-competition and anti-
consumer actions. Bristol Technology won a case against Microsoft 
(over Microsoft's sudden withdrawal of support for their Unix 
interoperation software Wind/U) but was awarded a laughably poor 
compensation of one dollar. Caldera had a strong case against 
Microsoft (over the illegal way in which Microsoft used Windows 3.1 
to force consumers to buy MS-DOS rather than Caldera's DR-DOS) but 
its silence was bought through an out-of-court settlement. The 
consumer has been the ultimate loser in all these cases because 
Microsoft's actions removed competitive choice and interoperation 
options.
    The DoJ's proposed settlement shows an awareness of these abuses 
and aims to prevent their recurrence, but it needs to be far 
stronger and bolder. The damage to the industry has been done 
systematically, over more than a decade, and significant network 
externalities have been created that work to perpetuate the 
Microsoft monopoly. How can this damage be reversed by a mere 
forward-looking arrangement? Consumers and Microsoft's competitors 
now face nearly insurmountable market hurdles to creating a viable 
alternative computing environment, even though technically good 
alternatives are available. Even if Microsoft's abuses are halted, 
the structural and systemic forces

[[Page 25965]]

they have created over the past decade will continue to work in 
their favour. At a time when consumers look to the government to 
right these historical wrongs, the settlement that the government 
proposes is inexplicably defeatist. It resigns consumers to the 
status quo! One would imagine that a prosecution that has had its 
argument upheld by two courts would have the momentum, confidence 
and real power to broker a deal that restores genuine choice to the 
consumer, not step lightly around an entrenched monopoly that was 
the problem to start with.
    2. A criminal should not be allowed to keep his ill-gotten gains
    Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result of these and 
other illegally anti-competitive tactics.
    The antitrust case established that the absence of competition 
emboldened Microsoft into charging $89 for Windows instead of $49. 
In other words, consumers paid extra merely because of a monopoly 
that was being illegally maintained.
    Four eminent economists filed an amicus curiae brief during the 
remedies phase of the trial in which they showed that Microsoft's 
rate of return on invested capital was 88%, while the average in 
other industries was about 13%! [See www.econ.yale.edu/-nordhaus/
homepage/Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf]
    Microsoft could never have made such huge profits without its 
illegal maintenance and extension of its monopoly, and therefore a 
major part of its current wealth is illegally earned.
    There is absolutely nothing in the proposed settlement that 
addresses the issue of these ill-gotten gains, or how these will be 
reimbursed to the public from whose pockets they came. This simple 
omission easily amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself makes 
the settlement a sellout of the public interest, even without an 
assessment of its other shortcomings.
    3. Ill-gotten gains should not be allowed to influence the 
outcome of this case It is disturbing to read that many states are 
settling because they are running out of funds to pursue the case 
further as they would like to. Meanwhile, Microsoft, with its multi-
billion dollar war chest, has no such constraints. They can outlast 
all their opponents. The world is learning the cynical lesson that 
the American justice system is a mere extension of the free market--
you get as much justice as you can afford to pay for.
    What happened to the principle (so successfully applied in the 
Al Capone case) that criminals should not be able to use their ill-
gotten gains to pay for their legal defence? Wouldn't a scrupulous 
application of that principle prevent the distortion we see here? If 
a convicted abusive monopolist has more funds than its prosecutors, 
and that fact is forcing them to settle, can't the monopolist's 
funds be frozen, or can it not be made to pay the legal costs of its 
prosecutors? A simple ruling along those lines might see Microsoft 
scrambling to agree to a fairer settlement, one that will better 
safeguard the freedom of the consumer.
    4. There is no attempt at punishment for wrongdoing
    Though it has been established that Microsoft has repeatedly 
broken the law, the settlement only defines mechanisms to prevent 
future wrongdoing. What about punishment for past wrongdoing? Are 
murderers let off scot free with mere provisions to prevent future 
murders? What kind of example does this set? And what confidence 
does this inspire in the American justice system? Any remedy must 
include appropriate punishment.
    5. The economy is being used as a bogeyman to prevent punishment
    It is being argued that in the current difficult economic 
climate, Microsoft should not be broken up or otherwise punished, 
because that will in turn affect the rest of the economy (through a 
fall in the stockmarket index, a delay in the recovery of hardware 
sales, more unemployment and hardship, etc.). On the contrary, the 
lessons of Economics are that monopolies are always bad. They reduce 
efficiency, innovation and economic activity. In other words, 
Microsoft's monopoly has already affected the economy adversely. An 
end to the Microsoft monopoly may result in some churn, but that 
churn will be the ferment of genuine innovation from the rest of the 
industry. The impact on the stockmarket from a fall in Microsoft's 
share price will be more than offset by the rising stocks of 
independent software companies that can operate without fear of a 
monopolist's wrath. A decisive curbing of Microsoft's stifling 
influence will create more confidence in the rule of law, generate 
more jobs and help the economy.
    Therefore, it is dishonest and self-serving on the part of the 
DoJ to suggest that this settlement proposal is the best one from 
the viewpoint of the economy. Moreover, the state of the economy 
should not determine whether or not a crime should be punished.
    It takes a statesmanlike judge to see beyond the petty posturing 
and to do the right and wise thing.
    Guidelines for a fair remedy:
    Any remedy in a case that has been so clear-cut in its findings 
must be more assertive in its defence of consumer interests. 
Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must address the following:
    1. Recurrence: Microsoft must not be able to continue to abuse 
its monopoly the way it has in the past.
    2. Reimbursement: Microsoft has no right to retain the excess 
profits it has earned as a result of its illegal actions. This money 
should be repaid to the consumer.
    3. Reparations: As Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications, 
it must underwrite efforts to restore competition and consumer 
choice. The rest of the market should not have to pay to recover 
from Microsoft's abuses.
    4. Reference: Microsoft must pay punitive damages over and above 
its reimbursement and reparations obligations, to serve as a warning 
to deter future monopolists. The remedy must in no case send out a 
signal that a large enough violator can get off lightly. Future tax 
dollars can be saved by discouraging abuses instead of having to 
prosecute them.
    The DoJ is supposed to be acting on behalf of the consumer, and 
they must pursue a remedy that addresses all the above issues.
    For example, a remedy that required Microsoft, among other 
things, to only sell through channels that offer at least one other 
operating system, could address the reparations issue and break the 
structural forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an OEM requires 
training to support another operating system, Microsoft may be 
forced to subsidise such training).
    The proposed settlement goes partway towards addressing the 
issue of recurrence, but does so only half-heartedly because it 
creates significant exceptions and loopholes for Microsoft to take 
advantage of. It completely ignores the other three issues. An 
impression is created that the DoJ is more sensitive to Microsoft's 
interests than to the interests of consumers who have been 
systematically robbed of both their choices and their money.
    Therefore this proposed settlement must be rejected as not being 
in the public interest.
    History will be the judge
    After the immediate tumult over this case dies down, there will 
be a dispassionate analysis of all aspects of the Microsoft 
phenomenon in the computer industry, and the roles of all players 
will be dissected. It seems fairly certain that the Department of 
Justice will be likened to a champion boxer who was paid to throw 
his fight. Judge Jackson will probably be faulted for his many 
indiscretions, but it may be remembered that his analysis was on the 
mark, and his verdict fearless. The appeals court will probably be 
remembered as being fair though it started with a reputation for 
being consistently lenient towards Microsoft.
    What will Judge Kollar-Kotelly be remembered for? Will she be 
known as the one who meekly accepted an agreement that sold out the 
public interest, because it was politically expedient to do so? Or 
will she be remembered as the person who braved the prevailing 
political winds to do the right thing and restore balance to a 
corrupted system?
    The world is watching to see what she will do. Regards,
    Ganesh Prasad
    Software developer and web architect
    3/1 Doomben Avenue
    Eastwood, New South Wales 2122
    Australia
    Tel: +61-403-902-483
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00014608

From: John Schreiber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:46am
Subject: No Deal
    Microsoft must pay a significant cash penalty to DOJ in exchange 
for this emasculated settlement offer.
    The DOJ's cost of prosecution is what I would consider the 
minimum acceptable amount.
    John Schreiber



MTC-00014609

From: Anthony Myers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:33am
Subject: my opinion
    My name is Anthony Myers. I work for a company called Service Is 
Us, Inc. in

[[Page 25966]]

Chicago, IL doing general administration. A majority of my job is 
payroll, however I do make most of the recommendations for our IT 
system, and I make sure that our network keeps running as it should. 
In addition, I am training on the side for a career change to be a 
programmer. I have just a few small observations that I have made 
with regard to all the ``contraversy'' surrounding Microsoft that I 
wish to share. In working for a small business, I have had the 
pleasure of exploring new software trends that come our way, as well 
as advising the owner on new purchases. Our network server runs on 
Windows NT 4.0 using Citrix ICA client stations. Although we have 
had the opportunity to explore many options, it seems that Microsoft 
has designed their operating systems to intertwine so much with 
their own applications software, that it is virtually impossible for 
us (a small company without a full-time IT person) to implement non-
Microsoft applications to their full capabilities when the operating 
system so heavily favors its ``own kind'' Finding software that 
often better fits our needs, ends up being futile because it would 
end up being alone in a Microsoft world that does not cooperate. 
What started off as being a pleasure--looking at new software--ends 
up being a waste of time.
    The other effect Microsoft's monopoly has on us stems from the 
consumer market. Since this huge monopoly is able to flex its 
billion-dollar muscles with all of the pc manufacturers, the general 
public (that are not software experts) end up buying, in every case, 
new pcs loaded with some version of Windows bundled with none other 
than Microsoft Applications. The average individual going to a 
discount store such as Best Buy or Circuit City is not given the 
opportunity to select basic software, they are going to just use 
that which comes ``free'' with the computer (not realizing that 
Microsoft did indeed charge them for it, further up the supply 
chain). Since people in the past 5-10 years have become so 
accustomed to this hand-in-hand software bundeling, they do not 
become exposed to anything else. The manner in which this affects a 
small business now days, is that if we were to choose non-MS Office 
software, we would also have to spend the money to train our office 
staff. With each passing day, Microsoft becomes more and more 
dominant and tightens its grip on the entire industry, both consumer 
and business (and each one does influence the other).
    These are just the observations of one individual being written 
down, but I know they exist to some extent in small business across 
the country. Microsoft should not be allowed to use its dominance in 
operating systems to feed its growing monopoly on the applications 
software market, which in turn feeds its growing power in business 
systems and networks, which in turn ADDITIONALLY feeds the monopoly 
in software, and back and forth, and back and forth. Will we NOT be 
happy until this entire country becomes the United States of 
Microsoft?
    Anthony Myers, Office Manager
    Service Is Us, Inc.
    5347 N. Clark Street
    Chicago, IL 60640
    773-784-2225
    fax:: 773-784-6128



MTC-00014610

From: Dave Sopchak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    As citizen of the United States, I would like to weigh in with 
my opinion on the U.S. vs Microsoft trial and judgement: That 
Microsoft has been found guilty of abusing its monopoly power, first 
by Judge Jackson, and having that opinion unanimously upheld by an 
appeals court, I find it both shocking and disheartening that 
Microsoft has not had to face any penalty nor pay any fines for such 
a finding of guilt of its past crimes.
    I find the settlement proposed by the US DOJ to be a weak and 
useless compromise, clearly in Microsoft's own interests and plans. 
Microsoft has shown, time and time again, that it is not only an 
abusive monopoly, but that it is unwilling and/or incapable of 
abiding by any remedies for its behavior set forth by the courts.
    Microsoft does not innovate. It either buys up, undercuts or 
blatantly copies the competition. The real losers in this situation 
are consumers at large, to say nothing of the computer industry. I 
implore you to find and mete out a punishment and remedy of behavior 
that fits the magnitude and history of Microsoft's illegal 
behaviors. To not do so is an injustice to millions.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Sopchak, Ph.D.



MTC-00014611

From: GR Sabourin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I use Microsoft products and benefit from them and their 
features. I resent the government's characterization of me as a 
helpless victim who cannot choose software that is useful to myself. 
I do not think that the government has any right to decide what can 
be in my computer.
    I resent the idea that a successful business and its product are 
a threat to anyone. The complaint against Microsoft originated not 
with individual consumers, or with Microsoft's partners, but with 
Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors. Failed businesses must not be 
allowed to set the rules for the markets in which they failed. 
Politicians that protect some businesses from others is a dangerous 
policy. Continued application of the antitrust laws against 
successful businessmen can only lead to corruption and economic 
disaster as shown in many other countries.
    I want to see an America where success is not throttled, but 
embraced. I want a free America where anyone with enough 
intelligence and hard work can be a self-made man like Microsoft 
Chairman Bill Gates.
    And lastly, and most importantly, Microsoft has a fundamental 
right to its property, and that it is the government's job is to 
protect this right, not to take it away.
    Greg Sabourin
    Redding, CA.



MTC-00014612

From: Holland Franklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklin S. Holland, Jr.
Brenda L. Holland
317 Climax Street
Graham, NC 27253
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regard to the 
Microsoft settlement. This settlement will serve in the best 
interest of the public. Continuing litigation against Microsoft will 
accomplish nothing but adverse effects on consumers.
    Microsoft is a company that has contributed a great deal to 
technological advance. This company should not be stifled or 
restricted any further. This settlement will allow Microsoft to 
continue designing and marketing their innovative software. At the 
same time, this settlement will benefit companies attempting to 
compete. Microsoft must share more information with other companies 
and must give consumers more choices. Microsoft must design future 
versions of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft 
software. Microsoft has also agreed to provide a license to any 
third party whose exercise of any options provided for by the 
settlement would infringe on any Microsoft intellectual property 
right.
    This settlement is strict enough to deal with the issues of this 
antitrust dispute. Please support this settlement and allow this 
company to get back to business. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Franklin & Brenda Holland



MTC-00014613

From: Harry Salmon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:59am
Subject: Microsoft & the COMPETITIVE PROCESS
    Hello,
    It is a shame to see the Government legal activity involved in 
interfering with the competitive process.
    The companies have been outdone and are using the States to 
accomplish by legal means, what the companies could not achieve on 
their own merits. THIS IS NOT RIGHT !
    Harry Salmon
    1244-13 Westerly Pkwy.
    State College, PA 16801



MTC-00014614

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,

[[Page 25967]]

    I am writing to you to express my concerns and opinions as a 
citizen of the United States on the matter of the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. I personally have read the transcripts from 
the entire trial and the finding of fact. The recent attempt by 
Microsoft to settle this matter was completely unfair and biased in 
favor of Microsoft. By accepting the terms of that prior settlement 
agreement, MORE Microsoft computers would have become established in 
schools, a market that is currently evenly shared between Apple 
Computer and Microsoft. The end result of this ``punishment'' would 
have been that Microsoft's market share would have gone UP in the 
education market and their competitor's market share would have gone 
down. What I believe, as do others as well, should be the only 
solution to this matter is as follows:
    1. Microsoft should be divided into two independent companies 
sharing no officers or employees between them. One would be the 
company that develops the operating system and the other would be 
the company that develops applications. This would assure that 
Microsoft would have no leverage in forcing OEM computer 
manufacturers to bundle Microsoft applications because of unfair 
advantages or forced disadvantages that would be imposed on computer 
manufacturers who accept or refuse to bundle Microsoft applications.
    2. Bill Gates should be completely removed from any position in 
the resulting companies, as the evidence in the antitrust trial 
clearly shows that he was, and is the catalyst for all of 
Microsoft's aggressive monopolistic/anticompetitive business 
practices. To further keep him from unfairly influencing these two 
new companies, all of his stock holdings in them should become 
``nonvoting'' holdings.
    I am a technology coordinator who uses various computers and 
operating systems every day. Microsoft, in my opinion and the 
opinion of many, is in their current position of power, not because 
they have produced a superior product, but because they have 
leveraged their monopoly illegally to gain and control market share. 
Please create a fair and balanced marketplace for computer operating 
systems and consider my suggestions.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher M. Hamady
    Toledo,
    OH
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014615

From: Mack Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:08am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
900 Duskin Drive
El Paso, TX 79907
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to encourage the Department of Justice to 
accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    The issue has been dragged out for long enough, and it is time 
to move on. A settlement is available and the terms are fair, the 
government needs to accept it. Many people think that Microsoft has 
gotten off easy, in fact they have not. The settlement was arrived 
at after extensive negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. 
Microsoft will share information with its competitors and allow them 
to place their own programs on the Windows operating system. The 
company agreed to terms that extend well beyond the products and 
procedures that were actually at issue in the suit, simply to put 
the issue behind them.
    Microsoft has given up much to settle this issue, it is time 
that the government agrees and moves on.
    Microsoft and the industry need to move forward, and the only 
way to move forward is to put the issue in the past. Please accept 
the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mack Wilson



MTC-00014616

From: David Thorne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I work for a national corporation based in Kansas and am very 
much involved in the computer industry. The proceedings of the 
Microsoft case have been of particular interest to me and I was 
pleased to learn that a settlement of this case is likely.
    I have many opinions regarding the broad consequences bringing 
this case has had on the technology sector. However, this is not why 
I chose to write to you today. Whether this case was just to begin 
with is of little matter now; instead focus must be on whether this 
proposed settlement is a good one.
    Both Microsoft and the Justice Department deserve commendations 
for a job well done. The provisions of this settlement that have 
been made public through the media appear to be fair.
    This settlement outlines the creation of a committee that will 
serve as the enforcement mechanism for the agreement. This committee 
is an independent one over which Microsoft has no influence. 
Microsoft will be responsible for the costs of this committee.
    Other provisions include the guarantee of freedom for users to 
select applications from competitors more easily and Microsoft will 
be required to provide its competitors with technical information 
making it possible to create compatible, and competing, 
applications.
    Please support this settlement.
    David Thorne
    (316) 393-8324
    [email protected]



MTC-00014617

From: Rietmann Ricky L
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  11:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the microsoft settlement.



MTC-00014618

From: Emery(u)A
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is one of the cornerstones of our economy. Please 
don't ruin this icon of capitalism!
    Al Emery



MTC-00014619

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the proposed settlement terms of this case as I 
believe it will be fair for all parties--and will lay the groundwork 
to repay the taxpayer for the many dollars spent in trying it as 
well as their cost of the effect of the monopoly on the marketplace 
to date.
    Regards,
    N Beverage



MTC-00014620

From: neo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:34am
Subject: Microsoft's Penalty
    Having read through the documentation and having considered the 
gross nature of the illegal behaviour engaged in by Microsoft 
Corporation, it is clear that a large cash penalty is the only 
solution which will force Microsoft to address and correct its 
behaviour.
    This penalty should be:
    1) Payable only in cash, not in cash equivalents, equipment, 
goods, or services.
    2) Microsoft should have no voice in the distribution of this 
cash penalty. The cash penalty should be administred by and applied 
by an independent council of non-affected industry experts if it is 
meant to address industry concerns (such as aid to schools) or 
renumerative litigation specialists if it is meant to address 
consumer relief directly.
    Any settlement which does involve a drastic monetary penalty for 
Microsoft will utterly fail to impress upon the company that their 
behaviour was (and still is while waiting final administration of 
the current case) not only monopolistic but quite simply illegal.
    alan macdougall
    branford, ct, usa



MTC-00014621

From: Dom Yarnell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Dominique Yarnell and I would like to voice my 
opinion concerning the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    Actually, I would like to voice my opinion concerning antitrust 
law, since it is of a far greater threat to our nation than 
companies that are arbitrarily defined as monopolies. The very idea 
of punishing a company for its success is so anti-american that it 
makes me sick. Unfortunately, such government intervention into the 
realm of private enterprise seems to be a trend that has been all 
too prevalent throughout the twentieth, and into the twenty-first 
century.

[[Page 25968]]

    Why does the government intervene in the marketplace? As a 
student of economics, I am familiar with concepts like, ``economic 
surplus,'' and realize that relatively large firms in any industry 
will result in less of that surplus. But where is the justfication 
for maximizing economic surplus? Is our government to ensure that 
goods and services are to be delivered ``from those of the greatest 
ability to those of the greatest need?''
    Capitalistic competition has led our country to its current 
state of technological and economic superiority.
    Antitrust law, a weapon wielded by comparatively inefficient 
firms against the most productive firm in a given industry, works to 
undermine our global superiority. This weapon is not one of free 
market competition, but of political pull and bullying. As such, 
antitrust law can only result in a decrease of overall production 
and an increase in overall corruption.
    For the sake of my beloved country, I hope you take my words to 
heart.
    Sincerely,
    Dominique Yarnell



MTC-00014622

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DeArmond E. Canaday
120 Aldridge Drive
Greenville, SC 29607
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    My name is DeArmond Canaday. I am a resident of Greenville, 
South Carolina. I am writing with regard to the settlement recently 
reached between the Justice Department and Microsoft.
    The settlement, as I understand it, requires Microsoft to allow 
competition for such services as Internet access within its Windows 
operating systems. It is also my understanding that Microsoft has 
agreed to a pricing structure program that will help level the 
playing field among computer manufacturers. As you can see, 
Microsoft did not get off easy. I hope that you accept the 
settlement in its present form.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my opinion on 
this subject.
    Sincerely,
    DeArmond Canaday
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond



MTC-00014623

From: Damon Butler
To: Microsoft Anti-Trust at USDOJ
Date: 1/22/02  11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to urge the USDOJ to *reject* the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. Time and again, 
Microsoft has been proven *time and again*, in court, to be a 
monopolist and to have abused that monopoly power. As such, any 
proposed settlement must be both:
    (1) a fair and just *punishment* for breaking the law, and
    (2) a powerful inhibitor that prevents Microsoft from continuing 
its anti-competetive behavior Any settlement that does not satisfy 
both of these criteria is insufficient. As recent history has 
proven, court orders, consent decrees, and other out-of-court 
settlements have failed to prevent Microsoft from abusing its 
monopoly. ANY SETTLEMENT THAT GIVES MICROSOFT THE SLIGHTEST CHANCE 
OF CONTINUING ITS ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR MUST BE DISMISSED! Not 
only does it make real, rational sense, it is also the law.
    Why must the currente proposed settlement be dismissed? Because 
it fails both of the listed criteria.
    In regards to point (1), the only real ``punishments'' being 
levied are minor. If the settlement is accepted, for example, 
Microsoft would no longer have absolute control over the appearance 
of the Windows desktop. Is this really a punishment? Windows already 
has, ``integrated'' into it, software for multimedia applications 
and Internet access. Windows favors such software whether or not it 
is prominently displayed, and users are *very* aware, thanks to 
marketing, about what is and is not ``integrated'' into their 
computer's operating system no matter what icons appear on the 
desktop or what items appear in the Start menu. Software from other 
manufacturers must be independently purchased or downloaded, and 
then installed. And even then it may not work properly with Windows 
(witness Microsoft's court-proven attempts to handicap non-Microsoft 
software). Users are aware of these issues. Do you really think 
changing the appearance of the desktop will really change the 
behavior of users and Microsoft? Another prominent ``punishment'' of 
the settlement: the proposed giveaway of hundreds of millions of 
dollars of PC-compatible hardware and Microsoft software to school 
districts, is again NO PUNISHMENT AT ALL!! The value of these 
giveaways, about $1 billion, is not punishing to a company with many 
times that amount of cash in the bank! It can be argued that giving 
computers to needy schools is a good thing. For the sake of 
argument, I will agree that this is a good thing, but this 
settlement all but guarantees that such giveaways be of a nature 
that benefits Microsoft and only Microsoft! IS IT REALLY 
``PUNISHING'' TO ``FORCE'' MICROSOFT TO GIVE MICROSOFT'S OPERATING 
SYSTEM SOFTWARE TO HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHEN 
THE COMPANY IS GUILTY OF EXTENDING AND PRESERVING A MONOPOLY OF 
OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE??!! How can such a move be considered a 
punishment??!!
    In regards to point (2), the settlement does *nothing* to 
actually inhibit Microsoft's maintenence and extension of its 
monopoly. In fact, if the settlement takes effect, and Microsoft is 
allowed to supply Microsoft software to school districts, the 
government and pursuant states will be actively enabling the 
extension of Microsoft's monopoly!!
    If Microsoft has a monopoly in PC operating systems, as has been 
proven, then the settlement should do the *opposite*! It should 
*curtail* Microsoft's monopoly. Such remedies must also be true 
*punishments* in accordance with point (1).
    It is difficult to say what combination of remedies can be 
specified that are both legitimate, real punishments for a law-
breaker that also prevent the law-breaker from continuing in its 
criminal activities.
    But it should be obvious that the current proposed settlement of 
the case is woefully inadequate.
    Damon Butler
    Impressions Book and Journal Services, Inc.
    (608) 244-6218
    [email protected]



MTC-00014624

From: Robert Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:03pm
Subject: microsoft Litigation
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft is the best thing that has happened to the IT industry 
and I cannot imagine where we would be were it not for the 
innovation of Microsoft and companies like it who are willing to 
press for change and increased productivity. I recently read a 
government survey of strong American companies that ranked Microsoft 
at number two. It is therefore amazing to me that a company that is 
supposed to be held in such high regard by the government is being 
pursued so vigorously by the legal system. In my estimation, this 
type of litigation is in total opposition of the concept of free 
enterprise and has done a wealth of damage to the country's economy, 
and the way the country's government is viewed.
    Microsoft deems the settlement as fair and has made several 
strides to honor the terms of this settlement.
    They have agreed to make it much easier for competitors to 
interoperate in the Windows environment, submit the decisions of a 
technical committee, and have agreed to grant intellectual property 
license and release internal protocol to competitors. These are 
small examples of Microsoft's efforts to cooperate with the terms of 
the settlement.
    I am truly looking forward to this matter being wrapped up as 
soon as possible. There is really no good that can come from 
continued litigation. In fact, wrapping the case up now will be in 
the best interest of the economy, as it would give Microsoft the 
opportunity to refocus all its attention on creating new products.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Johnson



MTC-00014625

From: Tom Jordan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't stifle innovation, let creativity flourish!!
    Thomas L. Jordan
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 25969]]



MTC-00014626

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/22/02  12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft
4925 N Calle Bosque
Tucson, Arizona 85718
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have had trouble seeing Microsoft as a malicious monopoly. It 
appears to me that Microsoft is powerful because of the demand by 
everyday consumers for its products. American economists claim that 
if you build a better mousetrap, you will experience success under 
capitalism. This appears to be case, except when dealing with 
Microsoft.
    Although the settlement calls for more concessions than 
Microsoft may have wanted, it realizes that settling the case sooner 
is better than later. The longer that this case proceeds, the 
greater the risk that our country may lose its competitive advantage 
within the world technology market. Also, let us not forget the 
devastating effect that a break-up of Microsoft would have on the IT 
industry as a whole. The loss of standardization and inoperability 
that would result would almost certainly stalemate the software 
market for years.
    I feel that Microsoft's concessions have gone above and beyond 
what the states called for. Microsoft is more or less opening its 
patents and products to its competitors in an effort to stimulate 
demand for non-Microsoft products. Furthermore, there is a technical 
oversight committee that will ensure Microsoft's compliance with the 
terms and conditions of the agreement. Most importantly, competitors 
will be allowed to sue Microsoft directly when they feel that they 
have been treated unfairly, thus avoiding another debacle at the 
federal level.
    Thank you for providing this platform for my opinions, and for 
taking the time to hear my thoughts.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00014627

From: Steve Rovell
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  11:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
USAGRovell--Steven--1053--0112.doc>>
I have faxed this to you as well.
Steve Rovell
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing in regards to the Microsoft antitrust case. Let me 
begin by saying that I do not agree with everything that Microsoft 
has done, but I understand that in a capitalist economy, the market 
will choose who is granted success. There may be issues of the 
antitrust case that have merit, but we should fix these problems and 
move on. The longer this case goes on, the more that lobbyists'' 
concerns are put before the end users.''
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have reached a 
settlement agreement that has already been approved by nine states. 
This settlement is both fair and reasonable, and the fact is that 
under the settlement, Microsoft will grant computer makers new 
abilities to reconfigure Windows to access non-Microsoft software. 
For software companies, Microsoft has agreed to document and 
disclose for its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating systems products. This will make the software 
more efficient, and, as mentioned, the hardware makers will be able 
to access it easier. That will spur competition. It doesn't make 
sense to spend scarce resources on issues that have already been 
resolved. This case has been harmful to the economy and has forced 
the industry leader to turn their focus from innovation to 
litigation. It is time to resume business as usual. Let the 
competitors compete and the leaders lead. The consumers should 
decide what companies will succeed, not the government.
    Sincerely,
    Steven J. Rovell
    Chief Information Officer



MTC-00014628

From: Sydney Kendall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:04pm
Subject: Economic Liberty
    To the District Court Judge:
    When I shopped for my first computer I went to a store that 
exclusively sold Macintosh. The saleswoman gave me her pitch and let 
me examine a working computer, yet she was not successful in 
demonstrating the superiority of the system over my Dad's PC. I'd 
been told by friends that the Mac was easier to use, was better for 
graphic art creation, and they had urged me to choose a Mac. But 
when it came to the hands-on demonstration, I could not see any 
advantage, and if there was one, the saleswoman didn't know how to 
show it.
    I went to CompuServe and was greeted by a salesman from Packard 
Bell. He gave me a thorough tour of his product. He answered all my 
questions clearly and with elaboration, and demonstarted all the 
product's advantages. I would get more of everything I wanted on 
that computer for a lower price than the Mac, plus more programs 
were available. In my judgement I was getting more for my money, so 
I bought the PC. I'm still happy with it nearly 4 years later.
    My Windows system came with the Internet Explorer browser. When 
I started building a web page, I learned that different browsers 
display web pages differently, so I went over to Netscape and 
downloaded the Navigator so that I could view my pages through the 
two most common browsers, and make sure they'd look good to most 
viewers. While I was using Navigator to check my pages, I also 
examined it to see whether I might prefer it to IE. I didn't. My dad 
also downloaded the Navigator and used it for awhile, but had some 
problems with it and went back to IE, downloading the latest version 
off the ``Net for free.
    I am a free adult, capable of exploring the market and making my 
choices without the government interposing itself between me and the 
companies offering their goods. Microsoft made it possible for me to 
get more of what I wanted for the price I could afford. I had full 
access to Mac on the market, as well as to Netscape Navigator. I 
freely chose to try my options and to buy what I wanted according to 
my means and my own standards.
    That is how the free market is supposed to work. Microsoft did 
not threaten me or anyone else with fines, imprisonment, or any 
other form of coercion. I do not see the company as a threat to my 
or anyone else's liberty.
    I cannot say the same for the anti-competitive tool used by the 
less successful against their more successful competition: Antitrust 
Law.
    Please protect the right of the successful to the fruits of 
their achievements. Leave Microsoft alone.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara A. Himes



MTC-00014629

From: Richard Doll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:12pm
Subject: fair settlement
    to whom is concerned,
    is the MS settlement adequate?
    more than adequate . . .
    in my industry, specifically publishing, I would ask . . . where 
was the gov in the '60s, '70s, and early ``80s.
    this was the infancy period when chaos reigned. no common op 
systems, no common disk formats, no gov effort to establish 
standards. so what happened? the public ``users'' sorted their way 
though the mess and selected the system that best provided a clear 
path to the future.
    and what did the future hold . . . legal morass. A gov initiated 
suit where MS is said to injure ``consumers''. A suit where not one 
real consumer was called to testify. A suit where only MS 
competitors whined their laments to a judge who requires 3 names 
just to know who he is. probably by now you know how I feel.
    MS op sys with their Office applications, and Adobe 
applications, with Intuit, with . . . is the any end to the list, 
has made my work easy. In the '50s I needed 10 semi-trailers to 
handle 5,400 fonts, today I hold them in my hand. In the '50s it 
took 3 people 8 hours to compose a newspaper page . . . today 1 
person creates 16 pages in the same time.
    I can paginate 500+ catalog pages in 4 hours. I helped create 
this MS monster . . . and I would have to do it again.
    please allow the current judgement stand without alteration.
    please don't allow further penalties that will injure MS or 
injure consumers, especially as in the ``tobacco suits'' where 
injured smokers are not aided by states languishing in their spoils.
    respectfully
    richard doll
    5935w--200s
    danville, in 46122
    [email protected]

[[Page 25970]]



MTC-00014630

From: Thomasin LaMachia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:14pm
Subject: Opinion on Microsoft lawsuit
    I have attached a letter expressing my desires to see this suit 
come to an end.
    Thank you,
    Thomasin LaMachia
January 16. 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
    United States Department ?? Justice 950 Pe??sylv??a Avenue.
    NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashero??t
    This lawsuit against Microsoft has been co?? from the beginning 
Instead of fa??ing on ge?? ??sues both sides ??ed in bitter 
accusations and post??ing.
    It is therefore preferable that there is a settlement. It will 
pro?? for ??rosofit to mend some of its fences by promising to end 
its retaliatory practices and even change its licensing and software 
development. Some of the terms are really fa?? drastic such as 
Microsoft's distribution of its codes, but in is my hope that all 
the terms ??e ?? to end this debacle.
    I am writing to convey my support of this settlement, along with 
my disappointment that this matter could have ended with a little 
more gr??ce, and a little less cynicism and spite.
    Sincerely.
    Thomasin Lamachia
    President



MTC-00014631

From: Ron Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    (All opinions presented are those of Ronald Keller exclusively 
and do not neccessarily represent the opinions of any other person 
or organization)
    To whom it may concern;
    As a voluntary user of Microsoft products, I think that it is 
critical that the court hears my opinion. I have been trained in and 
used Microsoft products for seven years as a computer professional. 
I have had the opportunity to use products and operating systems 
from many corporations including Macintosh, Linux, Corel and several 
others. I have found Microsoft products easier to use, more 
consistent, more powerful and more compatible than any other 
companies products. I find Microsofts integration of common computer 
functions, such as the Internet, Local Area Networking and 
Multimedia functionality provides a comfortable, simple and 
entertaining experience.
    The court seems to be insinuating in this case that I am somehow 
a helpless victim forced to use Microsoft's products. This is 
completely false and insulting. I have freely chosen to use their 
products after using the products of many different companies. 
Microsoft, in my opinion, produces the best available. It is 
patently untrue that I am forced into the Windows environment as the 
continued popularity of Macintosh products and Linux products 
attests. I could have used one of these products. I chose
    Microsoft. As a consumer, I have voted with my wallet. I 
question that the court has the right in a free market to change 
that vote. Microsoft's success is a threat to no one. There is no 
such thing as a true monopoly in the rapidly changing and advancing 
technology market. Microsoft continues to be successful not through 
throttling competition, which is not possible, but through producing 
a superior product. The moment Microsoft stumbles from their high 
quality standard, which may never happen, another company will be 
there to pick up and run with the ball they've dropped.
    The court should be reminded that it is not consumers which have 
initiated this suit. Consumers have overwhelmingly shown their 
support for Microsoft in several polls. This suit was initiated by 
Microsoft's competitors who have been unsuccessful against Microsoft 
in the market. Unable to achieve their goals through fair 
competition, they have come to you, the courts to attempt to do so 
by government force.
    Economic and market policy should not be set by such failed 
corporations. Such a policy is a condemnation of success and praise 
for failure.
    I do not wish to see my nation enacting policy which punishes 
success in this manner. The American Dream is the ability of a 
person to rise based on his ability and willingness to work. If the 
suit against Microsoft is successful, it sends a clear 
message,``Don't become too successful or we'll punish you for it.''
    We should be praising and looking up to self made men and women 
such as Bill Gates, not condemning them.
    All of this is in direct relation to what our government's, and 
any government's, most important role is; protection of our 
individual rights including our right to property. Microsoft has 
earned its place in the market and its billions through its own 
productive effort. It has neither stolen nor used force to achieve 
this. The reason for the existence of government is to make sure 
that that success is not taken by force. It is not the role of the 
government to take Microsoft's or Bill Gate's years of hard work and 
success away from them because a few lesser competitors were unable 
to be better.
    Thank you,
    Ronald Keller
    Quality Assurance
    Qqest Software Systems
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,letters@capitalis. . 
. 



MTC-00014632

From: Travis Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am extremely disappointed with the proposed settlement with 
Microsoft Corporation. Among the reasons why I think this settlement 
is a bad idea:
    1. It appears to contain no significant punitive action for acts 
that Microsoft has already committed. For all practical purposes, 
Microsoft has succeeded in the attempt to dominate the web browser 
market that was the subject of the original complaint; Netscape's 
browser product has been marginalized in the software market, and 
Netscape itself was forced to sell out to America Online--at which 
point it has virtually disappeared as a moving force in the software 
arena. This is, in my opinion, exactly the sort of anti-competitive 
act the antitrust laws were intended to prevent. While I admit this 
is essentially a fait accompli at this point, and that very little 
if anything can be done to reverse this result, I believe Microsoft 
should receive a severe punitive judgement for its actions in this 
case--both from the standpoint of abstract justice, so that it 
should not ``get off scot-free'' for its successful monopolistic 
practices, and as an incentive to behave better in the future. I 
believe the latter point is especially important, as:
    2. Microsoft has shown little sign of changing its behavior, 
even in the face of the ongoing antitrust case, as evidenced by the 
release of Windows XP. Windows XP contains multiple examples of the 
exact same behavior that led to the original complaint, taking 
various functions that were once provided by third-party software 
and incorporating them into Windows XP. While I am somewhat 
ambivalent about this point--as the included functionality *does* 
provide a benefit for the consumer--I believe this could have been 
accomplished in a more competitive fashion, such as licensing one or 
more of those third-party software products and including them with 
Windows XP, instead of putting them out of business by creating 
their own versions.
    3. I have very little faith in the enforcement provisions of the 
agreement. The 1995 antitrust suit that formed the roots of the 
current case included similar enforcement provisions, and proved to 
be singularly useless in preventing Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior.
    Thank you for your time.
    Travis Butler
    [email protected]
    . . . Cats are the proof of a higher purpose to the universe.



MTC-00014633

From: Steve Pfaff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Ruling
    Her Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    I urge you to make a fair and just settlement regarding the 
Microsoft case. While Microsoft has created many good products and 
helped standardize the computer industry, they should not be allowed 
to perform business practices that hinder the free market trade of 
other companies.
    They should not be allowed advantages over other businesses that 
inhibit fair competition.
    I am an accountant and have used Microsoft Products for many 
years, as well as others, but find it distasteful if they are 
allowed to do things that wipe out other entrepreneurs trying to 
create their niche in our market place.
    thank you,
    Steven M. Pfaff
    Senior Accountant--Financial Affairs
    George Fox University

[[Page 25971]]

    Phone: 503-554-2169
    Fax: 503-554-2168
    Campus Box 6029
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014634

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From:
    Lorenz Kraus,
    Albany, NY USA
    I am vehemently against cutting down successful people to make 
way for weaklings.
    A society that cuts down its most productive for its least 
productive becomes an inhuman society, where savages like Stalin and 
Hitler or Bill Clinton rise to the top using hatred and envy as 
their tool for taking power. Bill Gates has been a weak advocate for 
himself and his company. That is why this case has dragged on for so 
long. He is not for freedom and innovation as much as he thinks 
because he supports the anti-trust laws.
    He is not my hero. But, the fact remains that ripping down 
successful companies allows the Enrons of the world to take over.
    How long has the Justice Departement attacked good people and 
ignored the bad?
    All this time Microsoft was producing real new products, while 
Enron was screwing people over. Where was the Justice Department?
    When terrorists were plotting to destroy freedom, the Justice 
spent its time attacking Elian Gonzalez. The evil of that policy is 
in the body count at Ground Zero.
    There is something viciously wrong and dangerous in the choices 
made at the Justice Department. Hard-core pro-freedom Americans can 
see that.
    The Microsoft case illustrates that we no longer live in a free 
country.
    It's basically illegal to be ``all that you can be.'' The Anti-
trust laws don't allow it.
    The anti-trust laws are anti-American.
    Microsoft has been attacked for shotty products and for market 
domination.
    Look at that contradiction. A company whose products truly fail 
the customer loose market share. Yet, the government thinks there's 
a crime going on there.
    There is. It the crime of evading the contradiction.
    The crime is the propaganda campaign by liberal fascists who 
want the state to regulate and dominate the marketplace.
    There is injustice in the marketplace. It is the unregulated 
intervention of government in our lives, in our schools, in our 
hospitals, and our markets.
    The injustice is tipping the balance of good companies towards 
the bad.
    As a court, your job is to ensure justice. Now is the time to 
publicly absolve Microsoft of any wrong-doing and apologize to the 
millions of Americans who have lost over $5 trillion in the stock 
market collapse caused by the USG.
    Throw this case out of court.
    It's the least you could do.



MTC-00014635

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
5568 Matt Aaron Lane
Birmingham,Al. 35215
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S.Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write today to give my support to the settlement that was 
reached between Microsoft and the U.S.Department of Justice. This 
settlement is fair for all parties involved, and the remaining 
states should settle instead of pursuing litagation against 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows to the twenty 
largest computer makers on identical terms and conditions, including 
price. These are heavy hitters of the IT industry, and they will now 
be able to collectively leverage an extreme amount of power against 
Microsoft. Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against 
software or hardware developers who develop or promote software that 
competes with Windows or that runs on software that competes with 
Windows.
    I urge that no further action be taken against Microsoft on the 
federal level, and the settlement be accepted by the Justice 
Department. This settlement is strong enough for any reasonable 
person.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Yarbrough
    cc: Representative Spencer Bachus



MTC-00014636

From: Edson Mena
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: [email protected] @inetgw,letters@capitalis. . 
. 
    Antitrust legislation is immoral, evil and ultimately 
destructive. Our Supreme Court declared: ``The historic phrase ``a 
government of laws and not of men'' epitomizes the distinguishing 
character of our political society. . . .[L]aw alone saves a society 
from being. . . ruled by mere brute power however disguised.'' This 
principle is completely flouted by antitrust laws that function in a 
completely arbitrary manner. Banning ``unfair'' trade practices and 
``unreasonable restraint of trade'' is a dangerous and pernicious 
joke. ``Unfair'' to whom? ``Unreasonable'' by what standard?
    Under antitrust one can be punished if you charge less than the 
competition (dumping), the same as the competition (collusion) and 
more than your competitor (gouging). The list of companies betrayed 
by this vicious practice reads like a who's who of success and 
productive achievement: Microsoft, Intel, McDonnell-Douglas, 
Northrup-Grumman, Standard Oil, Alcoa, DuPont, IBM, American 
Airlines, Wal-Mart and many others. All these companies were 
vilified not in spite of their record of success but because of it.
    The American spirit is embodied in the success of the individual 
who triumphs despite the odds-- he who creates wealth through 
voluntary trade for mutual benefit. Our antitrust laws represent the 
exact opposite kind of philosophy--the philosophy of envy and of 
hatred of the good for being good.
    Repeal antitrust laws and let Microsoft in peace.
    Edson Mena--American Businessman



MTC-00014637

From: Jim Walton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to take a moment to express my support for the settlement 
reached between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. I believe 
the settlement is clearly in the public's interest and gives 
everyone involved a chance to move forward.
    After looking over the terms of the settlement, I believe 
Microsoft has made significant concessions that will require major 
adjustments in their past practices. For example, Microsoft will 
provide to its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
products on the Windows operating system. This provision represents 
a first for antitrust settlement. But Microsoft realizes that the 
best course is to put this case to bed and wrap up this suit.
    The settlement, in my opinion, will also boost the sagging 
economy. It will also provide consumers with more choices, which 
will give them the freedom to choose non-Microsoft products if they 
so desire. So I hope your support of the settlement will continue 
without further action on the federal level.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Walton mailto:[email protected]>
    Network Administrator
    Butler, Rosenbury & Partners, Inc. http://www.brpae.com/>
    300 S. Jefferson Suite 505
    Springfield, MO 65806
    417.865.6100 fax: 417.865.6102
    YOUR VISION. OUR FOCUS.



MTC-00014638

From: Carole Weston
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carole Weston
3241 Newton Falls Rd.
Diamond, OH 44412-9614
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of 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 25972]]

the business of innovating and creating better products for 
consumers, and not wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 A. Weston



MTC-00014639

From: Richard Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  12:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
EVANS CONSULTING GROUP
Richard Evans Telephone (770) 772-7377
Fax (770) 772-6354
1690 Spinnaker Drive
Alpharetta, Ga. 30005
2002 January 12,
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I have been in business for some time and have observed that 
there have been some reasonable settlements that have come from the 
prosecution of anti-competitive practices cases and there are some 
that leave consumers and businesses worse than before the 
settlement. I do not believe that measure proscribed by Judge 
Penfield Jackson would have helped the consumer or business in 
general. The proposed settlement appears reasonable to me.
    Therefore I support the ending of this three-year litigation. 
Let Microsoft devote 100% of its efforts to developing and 
supporting innovative new products that are easy to use and 
universally compatible. In the past three years the company has 
diverted too much of its attention to defending themselves in this 
lawsuit, and the net result is that they have been spending less 
time innovating. This settlement appears to offer reasonable terms 
and, bringing it to a close now will be in the best interest of our 
economy, and the consumers that want to use a rich range of software 
applications.
    The settlement imposes several specific restrictions and 
obligations on Microsoft's business practices. ``I believe that 
these restrictions insure that fair competition will not be 
jeopardized.
    Microsoft has agreed to design future versions of Windows that 
will promote non-Microsoft software within Windows. These are 
benefits that can help consumers and help stimulate economic growth.
    To end this litigation now is in the best interest of American 
consumers, businesses and the economy in general. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Evans



MTC-00014640

From: Fox Hollow Farm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
FOX HOLLOW FARM
Ed and Linda Sue Schoenharl
3260 S. Saratoga Rd., Langley, WA 98260
e-mail: [email protected] tel: 360-730-1720
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you today to express my support of the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement. Three years have now passed since the 
inception of this case against Microsoft. During this time much 
money has been wasted over this issue. Considering the recent 
budgetary deficits, the exorbitant amount of money spent over this 
antitrust issue is increasingly perplexing. To add to this fact that 
our nation is currently in a wartime period, any continued waste of 
funds would be ridiculous. The Justice Department must enact the 
terms of the settlement at the end of January.
    Further, if anyone was to believe that the terms of the 
settlement were not harsh against Microsoft, they are very wrong. 
Microsoft will now have to disclose the protocols and internal 
interfaces of the Windows system. In addition to this, Microsoft has 
agreed to the formation of a third party technical review board. 
This board serves the purpose of ensuring that Microsoft complies 
with the terms of the agreement. Thus, anyone that would worry 
whether or not Microsoft would enact the terms of the agreement 
should be reassured.
    Finally, I believe that the Justice Department should enact the 
settlement quickly. No more funds should be wasted.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Schoenharl
    Linda Sue Schoenharl



MTC-00014641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The views expressed here are my own and in no way represent 
those of the company I work for or the employees of the company. I 
work for Microsoft as a tester. Three years ago I was failing in 
sales and my wife and I were struggling to make ends meet. I took a 
year's worth of classes and next thing I know I'm working as a 
contract employee for Microsoft. Hard work, dedication and 
creativity are rewarded here and in less 7 months I was hired as a 
salaried employee. I'm now working up to a managerial position, and 
have just bought a brand new four bedroom home for my family on just 
my salary. My story is common for a lot of my fellow employees. None 
of this would be possible if Microsoft wasn't growing and increasing 
it's market. This company is a prime motivator of the computer 
industry, it's not far off to say if Microsoft sneezes Silicon 
Valley catches a cold. Damage Microsoft and what will you do to the 
small companies struggling to become the next Microsoft?
    As for Microsoft being a monopoly? What are you talking about? 
If Microsoft were the all powerful, industry dictating, monopoly you 
think it is we would have released Windows 95 and told the world to 
love it or leave it. There never would have been Win98se, WinMe, 
Win2000, WinXP and we wouldn't be working on the next version. 
Everyone here knows that we're in constant, high pressure 
competition with every brilliant Tom, Dick and Harriet out there 
with the next big idea.
    One thing about the whole browser issue, do you really know what 
you're talking about? I test our browser and do so with Opera, 
Netscape, AOL and a load of other lesser known browsers running in 
tandem with Internet Explorer and MSN Explorer. I regularly delete 
IE and MSN Explorer from my machine and install one of many other 
browsers and use them instead. If the browser/OS were such an issue 
could I do that? Every user can easily download Opera and run it. 
Every user can sign up for their local Mom and Pop ISP or EarthLink 
and use them to access the Internet.
    Glenn Barfield
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014642

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I was extremely pleased to find out that the 
federal government had reached a settlement with Microsoft.
    Although I felt commencement of this litigation was unwarranted 
in the first place, after three years I know the best thing for the 
country is to settle and move forward. The Justice Department 
negotiated a very comprehensive agreement with Microsoft that will 
require numerous concessions from the company. One requirement 
involves Microsoft designing future versions of Windows that 
provides a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers 
and software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. This will give consumers the freedom to add access to non-
Microsoft software onto their computers. Also, Microsoft will be 
monitored by a technical committee to assure compliance with their 
obligations. Ending this needless litigation will allow Microsoft to 
focus on new and improved products. I am sure these products will 
continue to be supported by consumers who know that Microsoft 
products are the best.
    Sincerely,
    Jill Bowling



MTC-00014643

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    On behalf of the Ohio Taxpayers Association, and our over 5,000 
Ohio members, I would urge that the Justice

[[Page 25973]]

Department adopt a settlement with Microsoft and not pursue any 
further legal action. Thousands of Ohioans are employed in well 
paying jobs because of the work of Microsoft, in addition, many more 
Ohioans are shareholders in the company. The only thing these 
lawsuits have succeeded in doing is to drive share prices of 
technology companies down, and drive unemployment up. Further 
litigation would only worsen this situation.
    Scott A. Pullins
    Ohio Taxpayers Association



MTC-00014644

From: William Richter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti-trust
    I have been following with interest the current proceedings in 
the Microsoft Anti-trust trial. While I admit that Microsoft has for 
the most part, a positive influence in the computer industry over 
the past two decades, their actions over the past few years have 
begun to bother me. While I am concerned somewhat about their 
marketing techniques, which allow them to maintain their operating 
systems monopoly, I am concerned that the lack of competition is 
stifling the computer industry in producing solid, stable and secure 
products.
    I have used Microsoft products for years, first with DOS and 
later with Windows. With each new version, I have heard that this 
version is more stable than the last. I am a technical user who is 
always working with my system, installing and removing software. On 
the older Windows 95/98 platforms, I normally rebuild my systems 
twice a year when they become unstable. Even with the newer Windows 
2000 professional, I still rebuild every eleven to twelve months. 
Each rebuild costs me at least a day to reload and install software 
and patches. I also use Linux based systems on a similar basis and 
do not run into this type of problem at all. I have had Linux 
systems run for years without the slightest instability. I 
understand that operating systems are not perfect and have defects. 
However, Linux has incentive to fix its problems.
    Security is also another issue that concerns me. As part of my 
job, I maintain our organization's anti-virus software. Because of 
the constant influx of new viruses, this software must be maintained 
in on a constant basis. Even with constant attention, the release of 
a new virus can stop the Internet cold until the infected systems 
are found and disinfected. Looking at the source of the infection, 
we find that the majority of viruses are caused by defects in 
Microsoft. Many defects have not been caught though several versions 
of the products. The damages to a single virus can run into ten to 
hundreds of millions in damage. This damage is harmful to the 
industry as a whole and to our national infrastructure because the 
frailty of the software.
    Microsoft has now announced that they will make security a top 
concern. This comes after major issues with XP that have even gotten 
the FBI involved. From my long experience with technology, I know 
that fixing the problem will not be as easy as Microsoft wishes us 
to believe. As with any design, the further along in the design 
process, the harder it is to make fixes. After the implementation, 
the cost becomes prohibitive. Meaning, we might not see a secure 
version of Windows until the next release, several years from now. I 
am sure Microsoft were more concerned with pushing Windows XP out 
the door before the court had a chance to review their latest 
product. However, this is a bad practice which puts their personal 
interests above the country's.
    The question becomes, what is wrong with the settlement as it 
now stands. First, the settlement does nothing to address 
Microsoft's ability to maintain its monopoly in the operating system 
market. This is bad because Microsoft claims that it innovates it 
products in response to market needs. However, with no competition 
Microsoft has grown complacent. Other operating systems such Linux 
and OpenBSD have already addressed the security and stability issues 
plaguing Microsoft products. However, because they do not hold 
market share large enough to threaten Microsoft, as would happen in 
a thriving open market has not responded to these innovations. In a 
way, Microsoft's plan for the future reminds me of the old USSR's 
planned economy. While this plan worked for a while, the lack of 
open market forces eventually doomed it.
    I submit that to follow the current agreement put forth by the 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice is leading us down a path 
that has not worked in the past and is not healthy for our country 
or economy in the long run. A system which promotes healthy 
competition in the technology industry and does not allow one 
company to illegally maintain a strangle hold is needed to protect 
us from this future.
    William Richter
    Technology Specialist, Edinboro University of PA 814-732-2931



MTC-00014645

From: Brian Hamlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:41pm
Subject: Proposed Final Judgement--Insufficient--
    Re: Proposed Final Judgement US vs. Microsoft
    Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally using monopoly 
power to further its commercial gains, stifle competition and harm 
the consumer, and illegally sustaining and extending monopolies in 
distinct software markets. This letter is to inform you of my own 
strong conviction that Microsoft Corporation has shown by its past 
conduct that it cannot be trusted to abide by its own legal 
settlements. The proposed Final Judgement is weak and contains 
serious loopholes. It was negotiated in haste and under pressure to 
settle.
    I urge the Federal Government to take the strongest action in 
this case, including the breakup of Microsoft, to create a level 
playing field for technology companies and to protect the consumer. 
Consider the proposals of the States of California (of which I am a 
resident), Massachusetts, Iowa, et al as reasonable and effective 
remedy in this case.
    sincerely
    Brian M Hamlin
    US Citizen



MTC-00014647

From: Borden Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the people listening to us out here: Please hear my voice 
too, I am an amerian citizen and have been following the entire 
microsoft trial since the beginning with very personal interest. It 
reminds me so much of my classes long ago on busting up antitrust 
moguls of long ago, like Bell Telephone or Rockefeller or the 
railroad barons and its is so important. Please hear my voice: Its 
time for this example to be closed now, and settled. Enough time and 
effort and opinions and money have been spent; I'm sure everyone has 
learned as much as they can, and any further pounding on Microsoft 
is going to be ignored as the world moves on and has all its 
attention on the current war we are in and the recession. It is time 
to close this down and settle it and move on . .Im sure, looking at 
the history of this country, that there will be more Microsoft 
companies in the future to use as examples, but this lesson has been 
learned and its time is over!
    Thanks for your time and attention.
    US citizen Borden B. Stevens, San Clemente, CA.



MTC-00014648

From: Julieann Willes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice, It is my humble opinion that now is 
the time to END the trial against Microsoft. Microsoft is a great 
company, and has done so much for the way we work and live. It has 
produced the best software ever made and has put it in the hands of 
ordinary people. Microsoft may not have been perfect, but they have 
paid for their indiscretion. What about the indiscretions of the 
competitors that are making so much noise?? Surely, we don't believe 
that THEY have none! This is about jealousy, and bringing the leader 
DOWN. Enough already. Let's get on with it. Let's start moving 
forward, not standing still. Let's get COMPATIBLE!
    People WANT to be compatible. Anyway, we need to put this this 
behind us. It will be a sigh of relief for more people then the 
people who are complaining. To them I say, STOP COMPLAINING AND 
START CREATING A GREAT PRODUCT.
    Thank you.
    Julieann Willes
    Office Manager
    Your brain is your computer...your life is the printer.



MTC-00014649

From: KT Srinivas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Settle NOW.
    Do not commit economic harakiri!!



MTC-00014650

From: Phil Shinn

[[Page 25974]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft as a corporate entity is a rapacious vindictive 
convicted monopoly totally out of control.
    From the Stacker to Dr. DOS to Netscape and now with their 
speech engines, they will continue to parlay their monopoly into any 
and all related areas. I have been a software professional for 
twenty years and I hate them. No one can stop them but you. Do it.



MTC-00014651

From: Bill Riddell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing this letter to express my opinions about the 
settlement that was reached last November between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. I am in favor of this agreement because it 
brings an end to the three years of litigation that have been 
plaguing Microsoft, and hampering innovation in the entire IT 
industry. Microsoft did not get off easy in the settlement, and they 
have had restrictions and obligations placed on them that were never 
even an issue in the initial suit. They have agreed to turn over, to 
their competitors, interfaces that are internal to the Windows 
operating system, as well as coding in Windows that is used to 
communicate with other software. These terms go a little far, but 
what is done is done. We now need to put all of this behind us and 
move on.
    Although I don't feel this case should ever have begun in the 
first place, I support the settlement since it squashes the 
litigation that has been hampering the technology industry for years 
now. The proposed agreement between Microsoft and the Department of 
Justice must be approved as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence Riddell
    6 Osio Way, Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940-5510
    Phone 831-392-1744



MTC-00014652

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop this witch hunt against Microsoft. Whenever the government 
has been involved in business it has made things worse. In my 
estimation Microsoft has done only good for the public. There has 
been and always will be compitition in the market. The other 
software companies just have sour grapes because of Microsoft s 
success. I remember the days when each computer had a different 
operating system and that was a nightmare. Microsoft was 
instrumental in ending that proplem. Stop throwing stones at 
Microsoft.



MTC-00014653

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government settlement is a sellout to Microsoft. The company 
should have been split up in two or three companies. Their monopoly 
is killing new and better products.



MTC-00014654

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The US DOJ should end the abuse of letting Microsoft Competitors 
use the court system to stifle Microsoft s innovations for their own 
selfish interests. It is ludicrous to take the position that a 
company such as Microsoft should be forced to provide a product that 
is inferior (i.e. removal of certain features) just so the 
competition can gain market share. This is America what is going on? 
This would have the consumer buying a lot of products separately 
working through the technical bugs of each product and buying later 
revisions of each product rather than have the option of buying all 
features in one clean package. This increases the complexity and 
wastes valuable consumer time and money. Oracle has apparently never 
even read their own advertisement where they brag about how their 
software package is integrated and replaces the piecemeal approach 
by a system that uses SAP Peoplesoft etc to handle corporate IT 
needs. Get real! You would think the government could attack a real 
monopoly like the Oil companies that truly do use OPEC to rig 
pricing or the Sugar Growers who are backed by Congress to unfairly 
elevate US Sugar prices. Now these are monopolies worthy of the name 
and Congressionally sanctioned. You would think the congressmen 
would be embarrassed by their own hypocrisy but some people have no 
shame.



MTC-00014655

From: biehl
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/22/02  2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Judgement
    I glanced over the documents and what I saw made me quite 
pleased. Microsoft has always said it was ``innovate'' but it has 
been innovate as far as strong arming non-Microsoft companies. I 
love the wording that stated that Microsoft can fairly compete based 
on innovation--boy, are THEY in trouble! :) . . .  There are a lot 
of companies I would consider innovative: Sun, Apple, etc . . .  
Microsoft doesn't seem to be there--though, to be fair, they 
probably don't need to be. Like huge coffee companies that 
distribute ``plain coffee'' leaving the ``special coffees'' to 
smaller companies like Starbucks, Microsoft can offer ``plain's/w'' 
andleave ``special s/w'' to smaller companies. Also,breaking the 
stranglehold on what O/S and applications can be loaded on the PC is 
also good. If someone wants Linux and NOT Windows, then the OEM 
should be able to supply that. If someone wants Netscape and NOT 
Internet Explorer, the OEM should be able to supply that too! 
Forcing everyone into the same straightjacket for only Microsoft's 
benefit is not good for anyone--even Microsoft in the long run. 
Still, like a big kid in the sandbox being told to ``play fair'', 
Microsoft will continue to ``accidentally'' toss sand at the other 
kids--even those kids who help make Windows more attractive because 
it is viewed as ``threatening'' (i.e. non-Microsoft). Having a 
supervisor on the corner of the sandbox (i.e. a TC representative at 
Microsoft headquarters) would be a good step to minimize that. 
Finally, my 2 cents as far as penalizing Microsoft. The settlement 
for Microsoft to give ``billions'' away of Microsoft s/w and old PC 
h/w to poor schools sounds good--until you realize that that $495 
MS-Office CD costs Microsoft only $2 to manufacture! And putting 
Microsoft Windows in the Education with Microsoft Software benefits 
Microsoft far more than the poor schools--I bet Microsoft is wishing 
for ``more punishment'' like that! Hit them in the pocket book! Make 
them actually write out a check for $2 billion and not the ``fake 
money'' they are proposing.
    All in all, the judgment looks like a good thing . . .  Keep the 
Microsoft Giant from squishing the little guys! Tony Biehl, Head of 
Computer Science Department, Columbia Union College



MTC-00014656

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    without companys finding new ways to serve us and hire people 
you would not have a job.government has never run anything efficient 
yet.j m w.



MTC-00014657

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please approve the settlement terms reached on 11/3/01. I 
believe that it is in everyone s best interest to settle this case 
now.



MTC-00014658

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed part of the Microsoft settlement that would allow 
them to donate computers to schools as payment would only further 
extend their monopoly power. If their is to be a donation to schools 
make it in cash so the schools can buy whatever computers they want 
with whatever operating system they want. Microsoft is indeed a 
great company with great products. But they often use that power to 
abuse and take advantage of other companies & the marketplace.



MTC-00014659

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    OW LONG MUST A WONDERFUL COMPANY THAT PROVIDES JUST ABOUT 
EVERYTHING USED IN RELATIONSHIP TO COMPUTERS AND IN THE PROCESS 
PROVIDES MANY JOBS FOR US CITIZENS AS WELL AS TAX DOLLARS BE MADE TO 
SUFFER BECAUSE IT IS SUCCESSFUL?

[[Page 25975]]

CONSIDER IF THIS COMPANY IS MOVED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE 
GOVT MEDDLING. THINK ABOUT THE JOBS AND TAX DOLLARS LOSS. THERE HAS 
BEEN MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME TO PURSUE THIS MATTER AND WITH EACH 
PASSING DAY IT JUST PROVES TO BE MORE A SOURCE OF PROVING HOW INEPT 
OUR GOVT IS.I M SURE OTHER GOVTS LAUGH AT US.I WOULD TOO IF IT 
WEREN'T SO SERIOUS. SHOW US WE REALLY HAVE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T 
IDIOTS.GPM



MTC-00014660

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the case should end against Microsoft and should have 
never occured in the first place. . . .  My belief for the suit 
initially was due to Bill Gates not being a contributer to the 
Democratic party and Bill Clinton made it a personal issue. (I have 
been a Democrat all my life and had switched and voted for G.W. Bush 
due to this awful political incident among many others during the 
Bill Clinton Presidency.)



MTC-00014661

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wholeheartedly support the settlement so that the technology 
industry can get back to business full time and the enormous 
uncertainty in the stock market created by the suit will end.



MTC-00014662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It s time for the government to settle and get off of MicroSofts 
back



MTC-00014663

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    basicly I want to say that this thing has draged on long enough. 
you slaped his hands now boath sides have come to an agrement and 
you want to keep it going. I say let this thing be settled and maby 
just maby we can get an operating system that works for a change.



MTC-00014664

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that it is time for this case to be settled and for 
Microsoft to proceed with their plans on improving technology. This 
whole mess has caused the tax payers money and loss of opportunity 
only because of the selfishness and greed of a few.



MTC-00014665

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I FEEL THIS SETTLEMENT IS THE BEST FOR THE PUBLIC



MTC-00014666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Typical of our courts paradoxes and bottlenecks I thought in 
america we want success? What did Bill do he became a success! Mr. 
Gates should fight on!



MTC-00014667

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement



MTC-00014668

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A Judgement has been rendered and to continue on will hinder the 
operation of similar organizations.
    Lets be done with this as the judgement seems proper and just.



MTC-00014669

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be broken up into at least three parts that is 
the only way to protect the public from Microsoft.



MTC-00014670

From: Microsoft ATR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I BELIEVE THAT THIS ENTIRE CASE WAS SOLELY MOTIVATED BY THE 
COMPETITORS OF MICROSOFT. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE JUSTICE DEPT. IS 
THERE TO PROTECT THE CONSUMERS--NOT THE COMPETITORS. I HAVE NOT 
HEARD OF ONE OF MY ACQUAINTENCES WHO IS DISATISFIED WITH MICROSOFTS 
PRODUCTS OR PRICING.



MTC-00014671

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I support the 3 November agreement. Let's get government off 
Microsoft's back and let them get on with business. Maybe I m a bit 
cynical but I see this as more sour grapes because some of 
Microsoft's competitors feel they can't compete and need help from 
Uncle Sam.



MTC-00014672

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is time to move on and all the various states to sign 
off on this. Microsoft is being victimized for being too successful. 
They practiced free enterprise by being innovative and hiring very 
competent staff. The complainers don't want to compete in the free 
market. They want business and success handed to them via court 
settlement.



MTC-00014673

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not come close to being fair to 
both consumers and competitors. Microsoft must not be allowed to 
force anyone at any time to utilize their software at the expense of 
a competitors. Nothing more need be said. To do reduces my job from 
that of an Information Systems Manager to a simple implementor of 
Microsoft products. Microsoft needs to be told how to be fair. Their 
historical behavior proves that they will not do it on their own. We 
beseech the courts to act fairly in this matter and to reject this 
harmful settlement.



MTC-00014674

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that it is in the best interests of consumers and the 
general public if the settlement reached by the United States 
Justice Dept. and the majority of the states is implemented. It is a 
disgraceful waste of taxpayer resources to continue to litigate this 
case to provide protection for Microsoft s competitors and to 
further the careers of various states attorney generals. The real 
losers are the public.



MTC-00014675

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlment with Microsoft is fair and reasonable and is in 
the best interest of everyone. I agree lets get on the really great 
technology that lies ahead.



MTC-00014676

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop the fighting over technology that has made 
our lives better. We have a war against terrorism that is much more 
important than a petty fuss with Microsoft. Settle with Microsoft 
and get to work on something more threatening to our society!



MTC-00014677

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get this over with!! Microsoft has come up with innovative 
products that has helped the world and everyone has used the 
technology. This is a waste of money and we as a country have more 
important things to concern ourselves with.

[[Page 25976]]



MTC-00014678

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I didn't hear of any litigation against Big Blue when they 
dominated the computer market during the 60's 70's and 80's. Mr. 
Gates is living the American Dream bred from successful capitalism. 
In the process he has helped make many of his employees very 
wealthy. Apparently success breeds contempt. Leave MS alone.



MTC-00014679

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I have purchased many Microsoft products 
over the years. I do so because I believe Microsoft s products are 
superior to other products. I don t believe that I have been 
overcharged. Microsoft has been unfairly drawn into a lawsuit 
because they manufacture a product line that their competion is 
unable to compete with. Microsoft has competitors who each year 
spend billions of dollars trying to develop a product that will 
compete with Microsoft's products. No one is forced to buy Microsoft 
products obviously Microsoft has grown to one of the world s largest 
companies because of customer satisfaction. Please settle the 
lawsuit against Microsoft and let an innovative company get back to 
what they do best without the burden of an anti-trust lawsuit 
burdening the company.
    Concerned consumer Ernest Wood



MTC-00014680

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a fair and reasonable resolution. No more 
should be done by the US Government to prosecute the case against 
Microsoft.



MTC-00014681

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the settlement amounts to a slap on the wrist for 
Micro$oft. Now Micro$oft is back to thier arrogant ways because they 
know that with a Republican in the Whitehouse they can get away with 
anything. After all Micro$oft gave them enough money to make the 
difference. I don't mind Micro$oft being the leader in areas that 
they have better technology but they have used thier advantage in 
those areas (Desktop basically) to stifle competition in other areas 
where there products were/are inferior (Directory Services Word 
Processing Enterprise Servers). Micro$oft has done some good things 
but in just about every occasion some other company did it first and 
Micro$oft merely ripped off thier technology. Thier licencing fees 
for software are a joke. When people get educated and realize they 
don't need to pay hundreds of dollars to have the lattest office 
software and don't need all the bells and whistles for most things 
they do Micro$oft will suffer. This is especially true in homes with 
more than one pc. People spend the majority of thier time either 
cruising the net or reading email. Why buy a new pc with the latest 
Micro$oft software to do this? Those who do are either foolish 
ignorant or both.



MTC-00014682

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Remember BATA VCR's. . . . Remember VHS VCR's. Thank God the 
market place selected and made only one the dominate system. 
Computers and operating systems also provide a common language that 
enables anyone to develope competive programs in a common language. 
Without a dominate system educaters would have an impossable job. 
Like the English language dominance makes the world more efficient 
in many ways. The Government should get off the case and let the 
market place decide the best products.
    Curtis Kornegay



MTC-00014683

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement should be accepted and the punishing 
Microsoft be ended. There are other operating systems if a person 
does not want Windows. Most people have Windows because it works the 
best.



MTC-00014684

From: Asif tambe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is good for the people, the industry and the 
American economy. The settlement is also fair and reasonable to all 
parties involved. I would like to have the microsoft case settled 
immediately. Asif.



MTC-00014685

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would hope that the settlement stands as is. I see NO reason 
what-so-ever for the Federal Government to sue any legitimate 
company but that has been done to MicroSoft. Now that the deed IS 
done get on with the settlement and push on. What company will the 
Justice Department go after next? Aren t there any bad guys out 
there any more that need prosecuting?



MTC-00014686

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle this case. It has been going on too long. Get the 
government out of the technology area. The original case was a 
msitake run by an out-of-control Justice Department and managed by a 
giased and arrogant judge.



MTC-00014687

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government has no reason to keep the Microsoft case in 
court. It is a waste of our money to try to break up a non-monopoly. 
There has always been other avenues to use a computer and to go on 
line. The American people do have a choice i/e MAC/Apple. The 
goverment should be there to govern the private sector not run it.



MTC-00014688

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Punishing Microsoft is a shame to our justice system.



MTC-00014689

From: Kelli M. Adam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kelli M. Adam
11400 98th Avenue NE
Suite 301
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 22, 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 encourage you and the Department of 
Justice to accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement. A settlement 
has been reached, the terms are fair and the government should 
accept it. The states that have not accepted the settlement are 
simply dragging their feet, and I do not wish to see the Federal 
Government drag their feet also or spend anymore tax payer dollars 
on this issue.
    Many people think that Microsoft is getting off easy, this is 
simply not true. The settlement was arrived at after extensive 
negotiations with a court-appointed mediator. Microsoft agreed to 
terms that extend well beyond the products and procedures that were 
actually at issue in the suit, simply for the sake of putting an end 
to the issue.
    The settlement is fair and should be accepted. Microsoft, the 
technology industry, and the government all need to move on. The 
antitrust case needs to be put in the past and business needs to 
return to normal. Please accept the Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Kelli M. Adam



MTC-00014690

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this suit should be settled ASAP. I do not beleive or 
agree with the 9 states or their politicians who desire further 
litigation. Let us move on to a more vibrant economy.
    Leo LaChance Fargo, ND

[[Page 25977]]



MTC-00014691

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
settlement that was reached in November between Microsoft and the 
government. I support Microsoft in this dispute, and I believe this 
settlement will contribute to the economy and society.
    This settlement contains provisions that not only allows 
Microsoft to devote its resources to designing and marketing its 
innovative software, but this settlement will also have a positive 
impact on competing companies. Competing companies will benefit from 
receiving more information from Microsoft about software, and 
companies can sue Microsoft if they feel the company is not 
complying with the agreement. Microsoft has also agreed to be 
monitored by a technical oversight committee. Microsoft has also 
agreed fully to carry out this agreement, for the sake of ending 
this three-year litigation.
    During a time when there are so many issues facing us today, I 
believe we should rally up our energy and time into dealing with 
more pressing concerns.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Mary B. Jones
    1 River Birch Lane
    Savannah, GA 31411



MTC-00014693

From: Paul, Randal H. M.D.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  2:12pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Get government out of the antitrust field entirely. Antitrust 
litigation has become nothing more than an arena for unsuccessful 
competitors to cry and whine about the success of market leaders. 
Microsoft, like Standard Oil, and any number of other high profile 
antitrust cases is accused of controlling market share while prices 
to the consumer persistently decline.
    Who cares if a company controls 100% of market share if prices 
decline? In fact, many economists would argue that you can only 
continue to gain market share if prices are declining.
    Microsoft litigation was foolish in the first place and guided 
by politicians from states that were homes to Microsofts 
competitors. Not only should the whole mess be dropped but an 
apology should be issued to Microsoft and the public.
    This would be an opportune time for government to vocally and 
prominently admit the failure of the antitrust paradigm. Please read 
Armentano's great book, ``The Myths of Antitrust.''
    Rand Paul
    200 Lakeside Way
    Bowling Green, KY 42103



MTC-00014694

From: Horne, Christopher
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would strongly urge the Court to propose breaking up Microsoft 
into separate companies to insure that it does not continue to 
monopolize on its stranglehold on the PC market. Microsoft has shown 
that its behavior will not change even in lieu of recent injunctions 
or possible penalties. Forcing Microsoft to break up into two 
separate companies, one for the operating system only and one for 
the middleware such as Office and Explorer, would insure that other 
software and hardware companies have a fighting chance to compete on 
a fairly level playing field. I don't think that any other solution 
would be effective against a company so large and one that dominates 
a market as much as Microsoft.
    Christopher Horne
    1817 N. Quinn St., #405
    Arlington, VA 22209



MTC-00014695

From: John Costello
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan. 22 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Dept. of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsft has been the subject to court action for more than 
three years inthe antitrust case:as they say, justice delayed is 
justice denied.You should support the settlement that was recently 
reached and allow Microsoft to give its attention to software 
developnent and not legal proceedings. Outside interests with 
ulterior anti-Microsoft agenda do not want this settlement 
implemented because they believe it does not harm the company 
enough.The fact is this settlement is very equitable.The settlement 
allows competitors to view Microsoft blueprints to create better 
software.This concession by Microsoft is very generous and only a 
fraction of the settlement.
    Settling this case is the logical action at this point. 
Microsoft is one of Amerca's most important companies, and is a very 
large employer.An improvement in Microsoft's situation could improve 
our nation's situation as well.
    Sincerely,
    John H. Costello, 3611
    Austin Rd. Monroe, NC
    28112



MTC-00014696

From: Gene Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene C. Cook,
17910 Shadow Valley Drive
Spring, TX 77379
Tel. 281-370-5206
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I write today out of concern over the settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust suit. I support the settlement you reached. It 
is past time to get this atrocious lawsuit over with. It is better 
to grow, better to build, better to innovate, than to destroy. 
Microsoft has grown its business from nothing, built the best 
software in the world, and introduced amazing innovations to 
worldwide audience of computer users. Let's stop the ankle biters 
who want to destroy Microsoft. Now, with the settlement, Microsoft 
will become even a better partner to its industry. Sharing internal 
interfaces and server protocols, while also licensing other 
intellectual property on reasonable terms; renouncing the standard 
business practice of exclusive marketing contracts; building 
flexibility to substitute non-Microsoft software in Windows; 
publishing a uniform pricing list for large competitors; and having 
an oversight committee visit its facilities to monitor the situation 
for five years will lead to growth of the Windows community of 
companies. I support the settlement and look forward to the end of 
this case.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Cook



MTC-00014697

From: chickadee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am strongly opposed to the settlement plan being considered 
presently by the Department of Justice. I would like to explain why. 
I am an average home computer user with no special knowledge of 
computers. Over the years I have been frustrated by the relatively 
poor quality of Microsoft products and angered by their unfair, and 
shall I say underhanded, business tactics. There is Microsoft 
software on my computer (not Windows) that I cannot delete no matter 
what I do. There is code on my computer that prevents competing 
products from operating properly. I have found it challenging, to 
say the least, to NOT use Microsoft products, even though that is my 
choice.
    The thought of children at school being indoctrinated into the 
world of Windows and Microsoft products gives me shudders. This is 
not punishment, this is complicity in the strong-arm tactics 
Microsoft has been using for years. I do not believe this is the 
intention of the antitrust laws in this country. Schools especially 
should have a CHOICE as to which products they use to educate our 
children, whether that's Microsoft, Apple, or other.
    If competition is supposed to serve to improve the quality of 
goods and services, I suggest we allow that process to run it's 
course. It is simply contrary to our way of life and business to 
allow one company to succeed because they continually push the 
limits of what is fair in the marketing of their products. Please do 
not let us down.
    Sincerely,
    Sydney Nash
    San Francisco, CA



MTC-00014698

From: mearle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 25978]]

    Microsoft is arguably one of the most innovative companies in 
existance today. Their undeniable impact on the accessability of 
computers, and gains in productivity are only one reason Microsoft 
should be left alone. The people at Microsoft produce things they 
like, and are good enough at making their goods to earn a profit. 
What now does it say to the future geniuses of this new century if 
the life work of others is altered just because others can't come up 
with something better?
    Some say that Microsoft has used its ``monopolistic'' power to 
prevent other corporations from competing. Microsoft has never had 
the power ( and never could in our republic ) to prevent me from 
buying software from a competing firm. Consumers still willingly, 
year after year, make Windows their choice over products from Apple, 
IBM, Sun, and Linux companies. No proposed legal remedy would 
improve these other companies'' products. Since they can't win 
freely in the marketplace, their plan is to hamstring their better 
adversary. Punishing Microsoft only lowers the standards for every 
one.



MTC-00014699

From: Leonard Simon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard Simon
6370 Bixby Hill Road
Long Beach, CA 90815
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a supporter of Microsoft, I write you with interest in the 
recent developments of the settlement in the anti-trust suit. The 
terms of this agreement are fair and reasonable and should be 
enforced as soon as possible. These terms include bold changes 
toward the technology industry and should be allowed to speak for 
themselves.
    Microsoft has agreed to some very bold changes in the technology 
industry that include licensing and marketing alterations. They have 
also agreed to make changes in design, which allow non-Microsoft 
companies to install their software on new versions of Windows. All 
of these concessions will be monitored by a committee that will 
oversee the enforcement of this agreement. The technology industry 
is ready to use this settlement as a guideline to move forward and 
get back to business. Let us not be the ones to slow down the 
process that we initiated in the first place. Please help to stop 
any further actions against this agreement and help get our economy 
back on track.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Simon
    Phone: 310-346-3448



MTC-00014700

From: Chris Lake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:06pm
Subject: Proposed
Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: This letter is my public response to the 
Microsoft settlement. Most of my adult life has been influenced by 
computers and, specifically, Microsoft operating systems and 
applications software. I have also used several programs that were 
specifically targeted by Microsoft in its monopolistic fervor. Two 
that immediately spring to mind are the following:
--DR-DOS, an operating system from Digital Research, was the 
installed alternative to MS-DOS and PC-DOS (from IBM) on my first 
IBM-compatible PC, purchased in 1988
--Netscape Navigator, the commercial successor to the NCSA Mosaic 
web browser, was my first browser, and the target browser platform 
of choice during my first few years of web design work (1996-1998) 
Until last summer, I was a devoted Windows user, one of the lucky 
few who had few problems with compatibility, system crashes, or even 
email viruses. This track record was in direct contrast to other 
members of my family who are less technically astute than me: their 
ignorance of virus scanning software and other difficulties in 
maintaining their systems resulted in many tales of hardship and 
confusion. At least three fresh reinstallations of Windows have 
occurred in their household in the past year; I myself found myself 
reinstalling last summer, after unexplainable system instabilities 
began affecting my ability to work. I also discovered that the 
latest generations of the Linux OS had become significantly more 
user-friendly, and since it is free, I decided to give it a whirl.
    Again, I am technically more capable than the average computer 
user, and thus the transition to Linux was not difficult. I have 
found ways to do virtually every task that I used to do under 
Windows. Free software exists to rival, even exceed, the software 
that I paid thousands of dollars for in my Windows environment. 
However, there is one very interesting gap in most free software's 
capabilities: the ability to read and write Microsoft-compatible 
file formats. This feature gap is a shining example of Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices: the large percentage of the world uses 
Microsoft Office and its proprietary file formats, which encourages, 
if not requires, other businesses and individuals to purchase Office 
in order to communicate. Although there are dozens of ways to send a 
letter electronically, most are unfamiliar to the average typist, 
and thus the default format, ``Microsoft Word .doc'' is the 
ubiquitous, de facto standard. Unless a competing software package 
can flawlessly read and write this format, the public at large will 
be uncomfortable adopting this software, no matter what other 
wonderful features the program may have. The result is, obviously, a 
competitive advantage for Microsoft through predatory proprietary 
controls.
    Until and unless Microsoft is required to publish complete 
specifications of all of its file formats (both existing and in the 
future) its monopoly will remain uncontested. Open Source software 
developers can reverse-engineer the Office file formats at 
significant cost, but never at 100% accuracy. Moreover, Microsoft 
can change their file formats at a whim, disseminating the patched 
code for their software to read and write the new formats via 
automated update procedures or, better yet, through high-priced 
``upgrade releases,'' rendering competitors'' efforts useless. Most 
of the world uses public file formats and communications protocols; 
the Internet itself was built using common, open-source software. 
The proposed settlement's requirement to publish the Windows API is 
a good start in this direction, but unless all of Microsoft's file 
formats and protocols are required to be kept in the public domain, 
competition, as well as cooperation, will be stifled.
    Undoubtedly, Microsoft has improved the computer industry in 
many ways, but it has also used its success and power to crush 
competitors, stifle innovation, and infiltrate the Internet with 
proprietary software. The antitrust decision made clear the abuses 
Microsoft is guilty of. The penalty phase should not be toothless. 
Without controls, Microsoft will continue to put its own domination 
over the best interests of the world, resulting not in competition, 
but stagnation. Left unchecked, we are condemning the high-tech 
sector of the entire world economy to the direction of one 
monopolistic company.
    I urge you to consider the future of computing in light of the 
past behavior of Microsoft Corporation. Thank you for your 
attention.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher M. Lake
    5269 Sugar Ridge Drive
    Sugar Hill, Georgia 30518
    678-546-5900



MTC-00014701

From: Espey, John
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir or mam,
    I would like to voice my opinion on the treatment of Microsoft 
and its founder, Bill Gates. I use a few Microsoft products for 
things at which they do particularly well (Excel, Windows 2000/XP, 
Outlook, Internet Explorer, and a few others). These products are 
excellent products despite the fact that there are no real 
competitors in the marketplace. None of these products has had any 
serious competition for the last few years, and yet they continue to 
get better with each new release. My point is that Microsoft does 
not think the same way that a typical federal employee or bureaucrat 
does. That is, Microsoft realizes what so few in our society today 
do, that in order to remain competitive in the marketplace, one must 
wake up every morning with a renewed focus on how to add more value 
for less money to one's customers. This is how Microsoft destroys 
their competitors, and this is why Oracle, AOL, Sun, IBM, Apple, 
Novell, et al. are so scared of this company. They are choosing to 
battle Microsoft in court under the ambiguous veil of the public 
good, rather than in the marketplace via innovation.
    Well, I represent the public, and I do not feel that Microsoft 
has harmed me in any way. I am not a helpless victim as David

[[Page 25979]]

Boies would have you believe; I can make a choice for what software 
I want to install on my own machine. I do not need a legislator 
deciding what software needs to be installed on my machine. I want 
that to be decided in a free market. And if there are no competitors 
capable of surviving in the market with Microsoft, then so be it. 
The only way this can occur is if Microsoft provides a vastly 
superior product. While this may not benefit the owners of the 
competitors of Microsoft, it is certainly a tremendous benefit to 
consumers.
    I truly resent the idea that a successful business is a threat 
to anyone. A band of thugs is a threat, a company that seeks to sell 
me products that are superior to those of their competitor is a good 
thing. I feel as if Microsoft is being attacked not because they are 
evil, but because they are good. What kind of message does this send 
to our children? Don't work too hard, otherwise your jealous 
competitors will sue you until you see your company broken in two? 
Please rethink the message you want to convey to the next generation 
of entrepreneurs.
    I love my country because the express purpose of the government 
is to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. What these rights translate into is really one thing: the 
right to property. Without this right, no other rights can exist. 
Without this right, we would live in the Dark Ages or worse yet some 
backwards Middle Eastern country. Every person in this country has a 
right to their property as long as they aren't using it to coerce 
others. Why then is this right being denied to the shareholders of 
Microsoft? I think it is time to rethink the position that has been 
taken for the past 8 years about Microsoft. The owners, employees, 
and partners of Microsoft must be afforded the most basic of all 
rights. They must have the right to their own property and you must 
protect this for them.
    Thank you for your time,
    John Espey
    Senior Consultant, Tallan, Inc.



MTC-00014703

From: Russel Gauthier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would think that the best way for them to resolve it would be 
the break up of the company into several companies, and the 
restrictions of certain extreme alliances occuring between these 
companies.



MTC-00014704

From: Matt Wills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft
    This is not so much a comment on the settlement, but a comment 
on the continued abuses on the part of Microsoft, this one involving 
the US Postal Service.
    The following letter was published in the readers'' comments 
section of MacInTouch.com.
    I think that for the US Postal Service to take part in actively 
promoting Microsoft products at this point is a disgrace.
Date: Mon,  21 Jan 2002 23:12:35-0600
From: Cliff Crouch
Subject: United States of America ``versus'' Microsoft???
    Just when I think events can't get any weirder, they do: I go 
into a United States Post Office today, and encounter a poster 
touting, not the latest stamps, but Microsoft Windows XP--*plus* a 
Windows XP promotional CD-ROM display.
    Yes, today is the ``Martin Luther King birthday'' holiday, 
officially observed throughout the United States, but this is the 
one post office in my hometown of Houston that stays open regardless 
(it's at Bush Intercontinental Airport).
    I take care of my business with the clerk at the counter and am 
headed back out when I observe, mounted in the window, a full-size 
poster (with the ubiquitous ``flat-green-landscape-against-blue-
sky'' theme of MS's latest marketing barrage):
    Microsoft
    THE DIGITAL WORLD IS CALLING.
    Please take a free demo CD.
    Microsoft Windows XP
    I stand there mystified for a minute, and the clerk calls out, 
``Did you need something else, sir?''
    I motion to the poster and say, ``What's this all about?'' By 
way of response, she bustles over to a corner of her workplace and 
fetches a promotional CD-ROM in a pasteboard slipcase: ``Microsoft 
Windows XP -- eXPerience the excitement!''
    ``Here ya go!'' she says as she hands it to me over the counter.
    ``So, uh . . .  did Microsoft buy the Post Office recently?'' I 
ask.
    ``Oh, I think you can get these from UPS or FedEx, too,'' she 
says blithely, by way of ``explanation,'' and goes back to work.
    On my way to the door, I now notice a similarly themed Windows 
XP ``dump''--that is, a cardboard display with a niche for holding 
two-dozen or so promotional CDs--sitting atop one of the tables in 
the customer area.
    Neither the poster nor the cardboard dump even pretends to have 
any tie-in to the U.S. Post Office; it's just plain, unvarnished 
Windows XP puffery . . .  the kind of material that Microsoft pays 
to run in print media and on TV.
    Has anyone else come across anything else like this? And am I 
simply naive, or is there something profoundly disturbing about such 
shenanigans going on even as District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly allegedly mulls the proper punishment of the Microsoft 
Corporation, an illegal monopoly, for violating U.S. antitrust law?
    Bemused, befuddled, & bewildered, Cliff Crouch



MTC-00014705

From: Bigelow, Willard
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please tell the court that I support the independent states 
(including Massachusetts, California, Utah, etc.) set of sanctions.
    Thanks
    Will Bigelow



MTC-00014706

From: Kim Potochnik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:30pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please settle this lawsuit. Enough of my taxes dollars have 
already been wasted on this!
    Kim Potochnik
    6927 Woodbury Ct.
    Wichita KS 67226



MTC-00014707

From: David Shlapak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:32pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    Lessee, the proposed ``settlement'' ``punishes'' Microsoft by 
giving it access to millions and millions of school children in one 
of the few markets it has not (yet) managed to dominate. Hmmm. Why 
didn't *I* think of that when I was a kid?
    ``Well, son, what do you think would be an appropriate 
punishment for breaking all the windows in your school?''
    ``Dad, I think I deserve to be sent to Las Vegas with nothing 
but your Platinum Visa and a box lunch. That'll teach me!'' Who's 
kidding whom here? Microsoft is not just a predatory monopoly, it's 
an unrepentant predatory monopoly and the proposed settlements 
*rewards* them for their behavior. What's the point? Better nothing 
that what has been proposed, but actual punitive measures would be 
the best policy of all.
    Cheers.
    David Shlapak
    1235 Palo Alto St
    Pittsburgh, PA 15212
    ``If you get confused, listen to the music play''



MTC-00014708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:40pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am just a citizen who uses computers at home and at work. I 
have read about the proposed settlement and have the following 
comments:
    1. Microsoft clearly has monopoly power and they use that power 
to limit choices in operating systems and applications. As a result, 
consumers have limited choices that are expensive (try paying $500 
for a copy of Microsoft Office software--a fantastic price that is 
sustained only by monopoly market power).
    2. Microsoft is wildly profitable because they have used 
monopoly power to extract an unreasonable price for their products
    3. The solution is NOT to allow microsoft to settle the case by 
printing monopoly money (ie give ``free software'' to schools that 
costs them $.50 a copy but credits them $500 --the monopoly price) 
AND extend their monopoly into the last area of the market they do 
not already control (education).
    Microsoft is the Standard Oil of our time.



MTC-00014709

From: Daryl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:51pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement

[[Page 25980]]

Information
    from what I read concerning the revised proposed Final Judgment, 
it looks alight to me. I do have a concern however. The portion of a 
compliance officer sounds good. However, I am concerned about the 
compliance officer being appointed by Microsoft. I fear that 
Microsoft may abuse this by appointing somebody to this position who 
could be easily influenced by Microsoft. Thus determining that 
actions are compliant with the Final Judgment, even if such actions 
are questionable.
    What I feel would be a good safeguard against this possibility, 
is that the Technical Committee would serve as a ``supervisor'' for 
the compliance officer. Meaning that the compliance officer would 
have to answer to the TC, and the TC making sure that the compliance 
officer's duties, and findings are unbiased in any way.
    Thank you for allowing us, the public to have our input on the 
proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. having this avenue to 
submit our input helps me appreciate the judicial process even more, 
especially when major companies are on trial.
    Sincerely,
    Daryl Courtney



MTC-00014710

From: Jim Delong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Question About Form
    Do you want comments to be in the body of the email itself or 
can they be attached as a MicrosoftWord or WordPerfect file?
    Thanks.
    James V. DeLong
    Senior Fellow--Project on Technology & Innovation
    Competitive Enterprise Institute
    1001 Connecticut Ave., NW--Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
    (202) 331-1010 TEL (202) 331-0640 FAX



MTC-00014711

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:05pm
Subject: (no subject)
David J Gorman
5 Forest Gate
Yarmouth Port, MA 02675-1459
(508) 375-0971
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 10, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to use this opportunity to extend my support for the 
settlement concluded between Microsoft and the Justice Department 
last year. I believe the agreement is good for citizens as it allows 
both sides to focus their attention to other matters.
    The settlement is extremely stringent and will require many 
changes from Microsoft. One good example is Microsoft's agreement to 
document and disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces 
that are internal to Windows'' operating system products. To assure 
compliance with the settlement's provisions, Microsoft has agreed to 
the formation of a Technical Committee to monitor Microsoft. This 
committee will also take complaints from third parties who feel 
Microsoft is not complying with their obligations.
    In the long run, I think the settlement will also be beneficial 
to our economy. It will free Microsoft to focus their attention on 
developing new products that will boost efficiency and productivity. 
Also, by taking no further action at the federal level, the 
government will be able to use resources for more urgent matters. 
This company has brought us into the 21st century in a fashion we 
could only have imagined twenty years ago. When are we going to stop 
punishing success? Lets put an end to this and get on with life!
    Sincerely,
    David Gorman



MTC-00014712

From: J. David Freer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor, It is my understanding that the forthcoming 
settlement involving the anti-trust case against Microsoft in fact 
does not uphold what other federal courts have determined necessary 
to break-up this monopoly. It is my opinion that this deal should 
not be entered into and that an agreement that more closely reflects 
the rulings of the other courts be enforced. I am certainly no 
expert, but it would seem that this agreement simply benefits 
Microsoft and does not really promote free enterprise in their areas 
of technology and development.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    J. David Freer
    142 North 17th Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19103
    (215) 563-1322



MTC-00014713

From: Dave Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, I fear that the courts decision to force 
microsoft to donate computers to educational institutions is a 
mistake. I believe it would give microsoft an unfair advantage to 
influence educational PC users and young PC users. The educational 
market has been a large market for Apple, another competitor of 
Microsoft. I believe this settlement will not punish Microsoft for 
their illegal doings but only reward them in the long run.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Smith



MTC-00014714

From: Jim Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:27pm
Subject: Tougher penalities needed for MS
    Dear Sir:
    There is nothing new in Microsoft's behavior--their predation 
dates back to before the first finding against them. They showed 
their stripes back when WordPerfect, the #1 word processor by far 
(and still arguably technically head and shoulders above MS Word 
even today) was trying to make the transition from DOS to Windows, 
and Microsoft was making noises about positive ``co-opetition'' with 
other vendors of word processors, spread sheets, etc. But 
WordPerfect was having tremendous problems, continually falling 
behind schedule because of conflicts with calls to the Windows OS 
that kept making the program crash. According to Info World insider 
article I read at the time, the internal slogan of the Windows 
programming team was ``The Code's Not Done ``Til WordPerfect won't 
run.'' In other words, so much for the ``Chinese Wall'' between MS 
Program and Operating System teams. Even if they weren't trying to 
help their own programmers (which I'm sure they were); and even if 
the programmers weren't exploiting undocumented API's in programming 
MS's own applications (they were, and it's said, still are), it was 
still a joke because the OS team could sabotage the Independent 
Software Vendors (like W.Perfect) through making the API a moving 
target, and taking their time in informing the ISV (or possibly 
misinforming them).
    Further, with all their holdings and activities now, they can 
leverage this kind of behavior much further than back at that time.
    If this slap on the wrist is all MS gets after all of their 
anti-competitive activities, this Justice Department will be 
immortalized for its total failure to protect the whole American 
economy from one of the least responsible corporations of all time. 
I suggest watching the original Roller Ball movie with James Caan 
for a view of that world. Forget all the government-intrusion heavy 
remedies, though. The main thing is to open up the API's (not the 
entire code base) to level the playing field and levy major fines. 
And forcing a Linux Office?? That just lets MS start to dominate 
Linux. That's a real help????
    Jim Keller
    PO Box 84
    Orangeburg, NY 10962
    PS: I never worked for MS or WP and am only a semi-professional 
in this industry, but many people care a great deal about this case.



MTC-00014715

From: Ernest A. Beier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dr. and Mrs. Ernest A. Beier, Jr.
23515 Portwood Lane
Zachary, La. 70791
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Justice Department
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, We would like to take a moment to express our 
opinions regarding the Microsoft antitrust case. The settlement 
reached by your Department was fair and reasonable, and is 
sufficient enough to end this case. We see no need for further 
action at the federal level, especially while Microsoft is involved 
in negotiations with the remaining states to reach a conclusion.
    Microsoft has made concessions that have set a new antitrust 
precedent. The company

[[Page 25981]]

will more or less allow the success of Windows to be a launchpad for 
the competitions'' programs. Under the current agreement, Microsoft 
will allow computer makers to minipulate Windows to allow non-
Miccrosoft programs to compete with Microsoft's programs. Most 
importantly, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against any 
company that engineers programs that compete directly with 
Microsoft. We fear that this case has had a rather negative impact 
on the IT industry as a whole and the economy. Putting this case 
behind us could have only positive ramifications on the market, and 
would ensure our country's place as the world technology leader.
    Sincerely,
    Ernest A. Beier, Jr.
    Carlette G. Beier



MTC-00014716

From: Scott VandePol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    1. The proposed Microsoft settlement is not fair to the people 
of the United States. Microsoft will be allowed to print NEW 
monopoly money to settle its damages arising from the exploitation 
of the economy through monopoly power (i.e., give away software that 
costs the company almost nothing for each incremental unit but which 
is credited towards its damages at wildly overvalued levels due to 
its monopoly power). It costs microsoft $0.50 to make distribute a 
copy of Office software that it sells (only through monopoly power) 
for $500. That is monopoly money, and microsoft should not be 
allowed to settle its debts on this basis.
    2. Microsoft proposes to settle its legal debt to the people by 
extending its monopoly into the only area it does not dominate--the 
education market. This is insane. This is rewarding a criminal 
enterprise. If microsoft were to give away software to the education 
market outside of a settlement agreement ,the government would 
rightly see this as an attempt to destroy a competitor--yet this is 
proposed as a settlement for monopolistic practices. Insane! I am 
just a citizen who uses computers at home and at work. I do not own 
any computer stock or work in the industry. Microsoft is clearly the 
Standard Oil of our time. in 1911 the DOJ had the courage to take on 
the largest and strongest economic private force in the nation for 
the sake of the people of the United States. How will history judge 
the current DOJ in its attempt to protect the people from Microsoft? 
I think the DOJ should feel the eyes of the future upon it and go 
for the correct answer that would restore true competition to all 
areas of the computer industry: break up microsoft. In the long run, 
only this will restore competition to the marketplace.
    Scott Vande Pol
    Phone: 216-368-1679
    Associate Professor of Pathology
    Department of Pathology, BRB 922
    Case Western Reserve University
    10900 Euclid Ave.
    Cleveland, OH. 44106-4943.



MTC-00014717

From: Steve Crandall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:44pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    The proposed settlement seems inadequate considering the 
magnitude of Microsoft's monopolistic activities. In my mind there 
are some central issues that relate to the security of the country. 
The wide-spread adoption of the Windows operating system has 
encouraged a computational monoculture. Monocultures in complex 
systems are always more susceptible to attack and recovery is 
slower. In light of the September 11 event I would like to see a 
major adoption of a non-trivial number of operating systems and 
application suites by the government. For example--for a five year 
period all government purchases (especially in the military and 
other sensitive areas) would have to include a minimum of three 
operating systems with none of them accounting for more than 49% of 
the total. This would constitute enough business for growing players 
that they could devote the appropriate resources to building world 
class product. Apple's OS X is clearly good enough now as is Linux 
and some of the BSD flavors.
    Steve Crandall PhD
    AT&T Labs-Research



MTC-00014718

From: Rich and Mary Gardner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  4:54pm
Subject: USAGGardner--Richard--1069--0116
Richard Gardner
11 Carpenter Lane
Newburg, PA 17240-9219
January 17, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am very happy to hear the Department of Justice has reached a 
settlement. I firmly believe that this settlement is in the best 
interests of the state, the IT industry, and the economy. Microsoft 
opponents would like us to believe that Microsoft has gotten off 
easy in this settlement, but this is not the case. Microsoft has 
been made to endure three long years of litigation in order to 
arrive at the terms of this settlement. The terms of the settlement, 
in my opinion, are fair and reasonable, and, if adhered to, will do 
much benefit consumers and avoid future anti-competive behavior. 
Microsoft has already proven its willingness to comply with the 
terms of the settlement. They have agreed to establish a uniform 
pricelist, grant intellectual property licensure to third parties, 
the establishment of a three person Technical Committee consisting 
of software engineering experts to help with dispute resolution. 
With the current recession and its devastating effects on the state 
and federal budget, is very important that the technology industry 
be allowed to concentrate on business now rather than being 
distracted by a suit of this magnitude. The public appreciates your 
efforts to resolve this as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Gardner



MTC-00014719

FROM: Dale C. Cook
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/22/02 5:02pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
8 Fruit Street
Woodville, MA 01784
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I am writing to urge that the Department of 
Justice settle the long prosecution of the Microsoft Corporation. As 
a consumer, I am more than satisfied that I have not been harmed and 
in fact have greatly benefited from the products and practices of 
this company. No one disputes that they dominate the software market 
for PCs in many areas but, at least in my opinion, no one has shown 
that they have used their position to unfairly price products or 
prevent others from competing.
    Microsoft has agreed to the terms of the settlement and has 
demonstrated their willingness to change business practices and give 
more access to competing companies. It seems to me that they have 
agreed to more than was fair and what was specified in the original 
suit. Prolonging this settlement will only hurt the consumer, 
prevent a good company from developing new and innovative products 
for the consumer and end up costing the tax payer millions. This 
suit has gone on already much too long. There are other priorities 
(like a recession, unemployment and the war against terrorists. 
Please use your good offices to pressure my state and the others who 
are holding things up to desist and let us all get back to business. 
Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Dale Cook



MTC-00014720

From: edwinmil
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:01 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I strongly feel that it will be 
in the public's best interest to stop federal action in the 
Microsoft case. This is why I am writing to urge your approval of 
the settlement that was reached in the case, and resist calls for 
those who want to keep the company tied up with litigation. I feel 
that the agreement is fair and reasonable, and has already proven 
extensive enough for nine states to approve. The agreement will 
require Microsoft to change the way it licenses, develops, and 
markets its software. It has greed to stop retaliating against 
software and hardware developers that promote products that compete 
with Microsoft programs. Most importantly, these engineers and 
computer makers will be allowed to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft programs that compete with the programs 
already included within Windows. Although these changes

[[Page 25982]]

seem to go against the principles of free enterprise and 
competition, Microsoft is willing to concede this in an effort to 
move the industry forward. Settling this case sooner, is truly 
better than later. The longer that the IT focuses on litigation, 
rather than innovation, the greater the risk that we may jeopardize 
our country's position as the world technology leader. I see no need 
for further federal action, and hope your office will see fit to 
allow the industry and the economy to move on.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin Miller
    124 Burdick Avenue
    Syracuse, NY 13208



MTC-00014722

From: DeGrands, Joel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that Microsoft has over the years hindered the 
development and acceptance of technologies because as a company they 
have refused to work with other industry leaders toestablish 
standards. Microsoft is an incredible marketing company, but in the 
process of promoting their products, they have destroyed smaller 
companies that have often tried to bring amazing technologies to the 
marketplace.
    Joel DeGrands
    Director, Webcasting Technologies
    703-810-8100 x 239
    Medical Consumer Media, Reston, VA
    A HealthAnswers, Inc. Company.



MTC-00014723

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a senior citizen and a member of the voting public I deplore 
the intrusion of state governments into a rational Justice 
Department settlement of the Microsoft litigation.
    Surely they've been aggressive---isn't that the nature of 
compettiveness in the business world? I feel that the states are not 
so much seeking redress for their constituents but rather are 
hopeful of a financial windfall. Enough, if you please!!!
    R.J.Corbliss
    Barnegat, NJ



MTC-00014725

From: Jessica Gui
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm disagree for the statement that ``Microsoft repeatedly and 
aggressively violated U.S. antitrust laws and was liable for its 
illegal conduct.'.
    I believe it's common business competition, and it's should 
benefit for consumers and technical progress.
    Sincerely,
    J.G.



MTC-00014726

From: Robert Lozonne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello I want to ask that DOJ leave Microsoft alone! Mr. Gates 
et.al. have done more for the nation (the world?) than many many 
people that have come before.I use Microsoft products as well as 
many others, and they have done nothing but improve,lastly didnt 
this start because Netscape was losing browser share? Wasnt netscape 
aquired by AOL who merged with Time/Warner thereby creating one of 
the largest media and content delivery monopolies in 
(arguably)history? Please save Microsoft,
    Robert Lozonne



MTC-00014727

From: vsun
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge, I am writing because I heard about the Proposed 
Final Judgment (PFJ), and I do not believe it should go through. 
Microsoft has infringed on antitrust laws, and allowing and even 
encouraging this kind of monopoly to occur is not good for the 
consumers--the American people. Imposing one standard on companies 
and on home users would not have positive results. Microsoft has 
already done enough damage to competition--please don't let it do 
anymore.
    Sincerely,
    Valerie Sun



MTC-00014728

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:25pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Sirs:
    I feel strongly that Microsoft's innovation in computer 
operating systems has seen the driving force behind the rapid 
expansion of computers into almost every business and home. Some 
business practices, while structured to further the growth of their 
company, have not hurt the consumer. To the contrary, their 
continuous innovations have consistently expanded the usefulness of 
computers at continuously lower cost. The antitrust suit may have 
had some merit relatively to their competitors but little or no 
value to consumers. The antitrust proceedings seem to have the tone 
of a vendetta rather than rational legal proceedings. The time has 
come to end it.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas and Beverly Thornton



MTC-00014729

From: Margaret Sorrells
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Margaret Sorrells
2394 Bold Springs Road
Monroe, GA 30656
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief. Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. 
With the reins off the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will 
be encouraged to create new and competitive products and 
technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret Sorrells



MTC-00014730

From: Jared Nuzzolillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you with the hope that one honest voice may be 
heard above the shouting and screaming of special interest groups 
across the nation. I'd like to start by stating that I have no 
financial interest in Microsoft whatsoever, nor do I belong to any 
organization that has said interests. I am coming to you, 
specifically, as a freedom-loving American consumer. Microsoft has, 
time and again, created the cheapest and most efficacious software 
available in its industry. I use Windows daily, and have found it 
both easier and faster than alternative products I have used (and 
there are many). Microsoft's software is, in a single word, 
superior. Microsoft is currently being penalized by a lawsuit 
raised, not by the consumers, but by those who failed to compete 
with them fairly, and seek special help from ``Uncle Sam'' to force 
their own software into the market. I don't want their slow and 
unreliable software, and as an intelligent, (mostly) free human 
being, resent the fact that you are attempting to remove yet another 
choice from me. Success and innovation should be rewarded in our 
nation, not penalized. Bill Gates is an icon of the American dream, 
and to steal/destroy/control his property is an affront to civilized 
society as a whole. It is your job to protect his, and the other 
Microsoft shareholders, rights, not to ingringe upon them. Please, 
take this opportunity to show the citizenry that the government of 
our proud nation will protect the rights of its people, and not give 
in to lobbyists and talking-heads. Please, preserve our freedom.
    Sincerely,
    Jared Nuzzolillo



MTC-00014731

From: John Boone
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''

[[Page 25983]]

Date: 1/22/02  5:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please break up this evil company. a slap on the wrist is 
entirely too lenient. every successful product that ms has ever sold 
owed its success to the o/s monopoly. that some innovation occurred 
in the past few years is not enough. the technology world has been 
held back decades by microsoft's re-gurgitated dos-derivative 
software products. voice and hand-writing recognition and other 
advances have been held back because they did not suit microsoft's 
agenda. wordperfect, netscape communicator, et. al. were all 
superior products to their ms counterparts, yet all have disappared 
because ms was able to leverage its o/s monopoly to their 
destruction.



MTC-00014732

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is obvious to the informed observer, that the Antitrust case 
against Microsoft is not a case of righting wrongs, but a legally 
sanctioned method for Microsoft's competitors to achieve, via the 
courts, what they cannot competently achieve in the open 
marketplace. Within the group, containing hundreds of persons that I 
have discussed this issue with, I have yet to find anyone who 
believes it to be anything else.
    Therefore, it is my assessment that this antitrust case has and 
will continue to set the stage for a publicly accepted establishment 
of a marketplace of litigation that will supplant the marketplace of 
competition in the United States and very soon the world at large, 
and all at the ultimate expense of the consumer.
    Even to the uninformed, it is obvious that it is not diffucult 
to determine if someone or some corporation is and/or has used 
``strong-arm'' tactics, instead of open competition, to gain and/or 
maintain their position in the marketplace. And it is also quite 
simple to understand that strong-arm, mafia tactics or anything 
using the same methodology should be punished according to a strict 
code of justice. On the other hand, open competition via superior 
quality, lower prices, free products or services, agressive 
marketing, etc. should be highly encouraged to keep the marketplace 
healthy and long-lived. Never should such competition be punished as 
it is being punished in the antitrust case against Microsoft.
    If such punishment is allowed to be upheld in the mode desired 
by Microsoft's competitiors, then we will surely soon see the end of 
the the business world as we know it. It will become the competition 
of the strongest litigator and all else that once drove the 
marketplace will be lost to history.
    Allen Dobrynin



MTC-00014733

From: CS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor, I am writing to voice my disapproval to the 
settlement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case. This settlement is 
insufficient to prevent Microsoft from conducting similar anti-
competitive practices that it had been doing for so many years. It 
does not address the fact that previous court sessions have 
concluded Microsofts guilt to anti-competitive practices.
    I therefore urge you to reconsider the remedies set forth on the 
settlement and to solicit changes to it so as to prevent Microsoft 
from conducting business as usual in the future. Most importantly to 
ensure that the remedies foster and cultivate an atmosphere for 
future creativity and innovation in the software industry.
    Sincerely,
    Crispian
    A Voice of the Wilderness
    The Small Guy
    The Sole Vote of Millions
    The Insignificant
    The Consumer You are Entrusted to Protect



MTC-00014734

From: R Warfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express both my disagreement with the judgment 
against Microsoft in the antitrust suit, and my view that any 
penalty forced upon Microsoft as a result of this judgment will be 
unjust and destructive. Everyday people all over the world have 
chosen to use Microsoft products, not because Microsoft forced them 
to use the products, not because there are no competing products, 
not because everyone loves the Microsoft logo, but because the 
products are superior to their competitors'' products. As a 
consumer, and as a computer industry professional, I am outraged 
that the U.S. Government, specifically the Department of Justice, is 
attempting to control what products are available to me in my 
profession, based on their views of fair competition rather than my 
views, and the views of an overwhelming majority of consumers who 
choose Microsoft products rather than inferior products of their 
competitors.
    This case was not brought about by consumers. This case was 
brought about by Microsoft's competitors who, rather than focusing 
their resources on creating better products, and improving their 
existing products, have chosen to portray their failures as the 
result of Microsoft's successes. This is complete nonsense. 
Microsoft's success has led to greater markets for even these 
competitors; markets the competitors were unable to create on their 
own, and a flourishing high tech industry.
    To punish Microsoft is to punish success, and to reward failure. 
This is a political position that has led to corruption and 
destruction throughout history in every region and among every 
people where it has been implemented. Again, Microsoft has never 
used force in any way to influence the marketing or sale of 
products. But the U.S. Government is now in the dangerous position 
of doing exactly that. Whose interests are to be protected by 
punishing Microsoft? Obviously not the interests of the consumers, 
who freely choose which products they purchase. No, it will be the 
interests of competitors who have failed to produce superior 
products. The foremost function of the U.S. Government is to protect 
individual freedom and property. This function should not be 
abandoned. Microsoft's success is the result of individual choices 
by individual consumers. This success should be congratulated, not 
punished.
    Richard Warfield
    50 Grace St
    Jersey City, NJ 07307



MTC-00014735

From: Girish Vasvani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  5:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, My name is Girish Vasvani, am a software industry 
employee in California.
    My resident address is ,
    34144, Kasper Terrace,
    Fremont, CA-94555
    Ph: 510-742-1549
    Over the past three years every federal court that has reviewed 
the Microsoft antitrust case has found that Microsoft repeatedly and 
aggressively violated U.S. antitrust laws and was liable for its 
illegal conduct. The way Microsoft ``Crushed'' Netscape using it's 
Monopoly power is, pretty evident, and if Microsoft is not punished 
adequately for this, people in America will not trust Anti-trust 
Laws any more. I don't agree to Proposed Final Judgement in 
Microsoft Settlement case for following reasons.
    1. The PFJ does not End Microsoft's Monopoly and Even Allows 
Microsoft to expand its Monopoly into Other Technology Markets. The 
deal fails to terminate the Microsoft monopoly, and instead 
guarantees Microsoft's 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. In other words, to maximize profits (the goal of every 
public company), monopolists are almost forced to maximize the 
market power that their monopoly gives them. And this is why all 
monopolies must be carefully watched to make sure they don't abuse 
their monopoly position. Indeed, many monopolies are either broken 
up or carefully regulated in order to protect the public interest. 
Why is Microsoft allowed a waiver to this general rule? Does the 
Justice Department think that Microsoft is going to suddenly change 
its operating methodology? The proposed deal with the justice 
department does not address the fact that Microsoft has abused its 
monopoly and is likely to do so again, and again, and again in the 
future to the detriment of others.
    2. The PFJ Does Not Adequately Address Anticompetitive Behavior 
Identified by the Appeals Court. Retaliation. The proposed 
settlement does not address Microsoft's proven ability to retaliate 
against would-be competitors and to, in effect, appropriate the 
intellectual property of its competitors ? and even its partners ? 
in fact all who do business with Microsoft. The Appeals court found 
such past conduct by Microsoft highly egregious yet the Agreement 
does not address these issues. Again, many of us have been on

[[Page 25984]]

the receiving end of these types of Microsoft bullying tactics.
    regards,
    Girish



MTC-00014736

From: Delfin J Beltran MD
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement should be completed. Programs developed 
using Microsoft's proprietary programming code obtained under this 
settlement should be enjoined from stating that the new, non-
Microsoft product is in any way compatible with or certified by 
Microsoft unless it has been submitted to Microsoft for evaluation, 
testing and determined to be in-fact compatible with MS software or 
code and or certified by Microsoft. I have been involved in 
computation development and consulting since 1970 and feel that this 
trial was as injudicial as the ATT suit.
    Sincerely;
    Delfin J Beltran, MD



MTC-00014737

From: brownsm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Susan Brown, I am a professional who has been in the 
Information Technology field since the 1970's. As a consumer 
interested in using the best and most reliable products available, 
you must know that I would select Microsoft products any time of the 
day and for the rest of my life! Those who are leading the attack 
against Microsoft must stop this crusade against a company that has 
managed to develop the best products possible for appreciative 
consumers. The fact that other envious companies have not been able 
to produce valuable products gives no one the right to attack and to 
destroy a company who has! Leave Microsoft alone and be glad that 
Bill Gates and his team have brought the whole world into the 
enlightened, productive, and efficient time that we, the consumers, 
enjoy today!
    My name is Susan Brown; I am in support of Microsoft and you can 
contact me directly at (562) 923-7873



MTC-00014738

From: Frank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam:bbb
    Microsoft is guilty on not just one count but on several counts. 
First, Microsoft has provided a quality software platform frrom 
which hundreds of thousands of American software companies could 
launch their products. Secondly, as a corrolary directly and 
indirectly Microsoft has created economic value for the United 
States of America. providing jobs to millions of Americans. Thirdly, 
Microsoft has demonstrably, thankfully, and undeniably, led the way 
in providing stability and growth to the overall economy of The 
United States of America. Fourth, in a free economy, there are in 
fact no monopolies since no one is previnted from entering the 
market with their products. Accordingly, the only monopolies in the 
United States are the government created monopolies such as the 
utility companies, and the Post Office. Neither of which should 
exist as such in a free economy. Fifth, the argument that we need a 
level playing field is an oxymoron since there is no sports analogy 
here whatsover. The quality products are not a matter of competition 
but of productivity. Competition comes into play as a secondary 
issue and requires no other adjudicator other than the market place. 
Miocrosoft's detractors would lead you to believe that it has market 
share because it shoves products down the throats of its customers. 
This argument belies the fact that customers can purchase whatever 
they wish to purchase. And, the argument that a consumer would like 
to see the so called underdog get a fair shake and therefore 
Microsoft should be made to turn over part of its product to a 
competitor is the sheer use of government force at the behest of 
those weak sisters who can not compete in the open market. It is 
clear that microsoft's detractors are its major competors rather 
than their customers. Customers do not materialize out of nowhere--
they come forth when their is value to be had from the market place. 
Finally, the argument that Microsoft has a monopoly is belied by 
simply looking at the market place historically. If large companies 
could dominate the market place in a free market simply by some sort 
of intangible force that its detractors allege then we must ask:, 
``How did Sears beat Montgomery Ward? How did K Mart beat Sears? How 
did WalMart beat KMart? And yes, how in the world did little 
Microsoft take the PC software market hands down away from IBM?.'' 
The answer is simple.
    These companies all had excellent quality products. When other 
management and its innovators became more productive, American 
individuals percieved the new source of excellence and made their 
purchases accordingly. Accordingly, the market place in a free 
economy guarantees that the best products are always available to 
the market. Rather than peanalizing Microsoft it should be rewarded 
for its creation of opulence for America in the form of 
international economic excellence; better software tools for 
American industrial production; and the contribution to a higher 
standard standard of living enjoyed by all. Why is this heroic 
American company being slapped on the wrist at all. Microsoft should 
be rewarded for being what it is--one of the best examples of genius 
and creativity.
    Regards,
    Frank Schneider
    Elkins, West Virginia



MTC-00014739

From: Roger Chamberlain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
10671 S Willowstone Circle
South Jordan, UT 84095
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am deeply concerned for the future of America. For the past 
three years, the Microsoft antitrust case has remained unresolved in 
the federal courts. America's economy, already declining, has been 
injured by the costs of the trial, both private and public. The 
technology industry has lagged during the proceedings because 
Microsoft fears the products of its innovation will be opened to 
what amounts to legal plagiarism. Now, when a solution seems 
imminent, Microsoft's competitors and the states in which they hold 
sway are actively seeking to undermine the proposed settlement and 
bring further litigation against the Microsoft Corporation. I find 
myself questioning the sanity of their motives.
    Microsoft was indeed in violation of antitrust laws, and was, by 
law, required to account for its wrongs. I object, however, to the 
avarice that now motivates the remaining litigious parties in the 
suit. Microsoft's wrongs have been justly righted, and the 
settlement prohibits further antitrust violations. This no longer 
seems to be a question of fulfilling the requirements of the law, 
rather, it has become a rally to destroy Microsoft and give the 
underdogs a piece of the corporation on which to stand. The 
destruction of Microsoft will not suddenly enable its competitors to 
produce magnificent software that will blow foreign technologies 
away. Indeed, were Microsoft to be crippled by the results of this 
trial, it is quite probable that America would lose its competitive 
edge in the international market and, instead of driving our own 
technology industry, we would become driven by those who do not have 
our best interests at heart.
    The settlement is entirely fair. It not only restricts future 
monopolistic behaviors on Microsoft's part, it also requires the 
corporation to make a variety of changes in its products and 
procedures that would enable its competitors to piggyback on 
Microsoft technology and therefore more easily compete. For example, 
Microsoft has agreed to reformat upcoming versions of Windows so 
that the operating system will support non-Microsoft software. 
Competitors will also be allowed broad rights to reconfigure Windows 
to their own specifications. Moreover, Microsoft has agreed to 
provide third parties acting under the terms of the settlement with 
a license to applicable intellectual property rights. I do not 
believe any more should be required at the hands of Microsoft. I 
pity smaller companies who are truly unable to compete. I am sorry 
Microsoft was successful and they were not. But I do not believe 
those who made good decisions should be punished for the mistakes of 
others.
    Microsoft was a big part of the computer boom, and a lot of 
companies were carried with them. Since then, Microsoft has not 
ceased to put money back into the economy. Antitrust laws are 
supposed to be in place to protect the consumer. I believe it is 
time to reconsider the laws and how it will affect America in a 
global economy. Microsoft's competitors are using the law to further 
their own interests; if they are successful, the

[[Page 25985]]

consumer will suffer terribly. Foreign-based companies have a 
distinct advantage over American businesses because they do not play 
by the same rules. It is vital that the American interest is 
protected, and if that means sacrificing those who are unable to 
take a hit and keep moving, then so be it. If weak companies are 
protected at the expense of the strong, the entire industry is 
weakened. If America continues to punish the frontrunners, we will 
only succeed in putting ourselves at the mercy of foreign companies. 
I urge you to support this settlement, and not to allow industrial 
narcissists to put the entire economy at risk. The future of America 
is at stake.
    Sincerely,
    Roger Chamberlain



MTC-00014740

From: Blake Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Blake Ross. I'm a concerned citizen. I don't believe 
the proposed final judgment does anything to remedy the monopolistic 
behavior that Microsoft has engaged in for years. For example, what 
tangible steps does the judgment making toward preventing Microsoft 
from using its dominance in the operating system market to leverage 
its other products? I recently installed Windows XP and was appalled 
at the prevalence of bundled Microsoft products. Microsoft Windows 
Media Player, MSN Internet Explorer, Windows Messenger, etc.--
they're all over the place, and the user can't uninstall them! In 
fact, just trying to delete the programs from your file system makes 
them magically reappear. Why is Windows Messenger so ``tightly 
integrated'' that I can't even uninstall it? It used to be called 
MSN Messenger, and it used to be separated--then Microsoft just 
renamed it Windows Messenger, and it immediately became a 
``necessary component'' of Windows. How can companies compete 
against this monolith? Do something that makes a difference.
    Blake Ross



MTC-00014741

From: D R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in response to a call for public comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I use Microsoft products, and I benefit greatly from them. This 
includes the various versions of their browser over the years. The 
notion that I'm a helpless victim who can't choose software that's 
useful to me, is deeply insulting. I don't think the government has 
any right to decide what can be in my computer, and for the same 
reason I don't think the government has any right to determine what 
computer I may or may not buy, or what computer features. I want you 
to know that I resent the idea that a successful business and its 
products are a threat to anyone. Remember that the complaint against 
Microsoft originated not with individual consumers, or with 
Microsoft's partners, but with Microsoft's unsuccessful competitors.
    Failed businesses must not be allowed to set the rules for the 
markets in which they failed. For politicians to protect some 
businesses from others is a dangerous policy, leading to corruption 
and economic disaster as shown in many other countries.
    I want a *free* America where anyone with enough intelligence 
and hard work can be a self-made man like Microsoft Chairman Bill 
Gates. I want to see an America where success is not throttled but 
embraced.
    Lastly, I would remind the court of its fundamental job. 
Microsoft, like any other business or person, has a right to its 
property, and it is the job of the government (including this court) 
to protect this right, not to take it away.
    Sincerely,
    David Rowlett
    14444 Beach Blvd #18-119
    Jacksonville, FL 32250



MTC-00014742

From: Patricia K. Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:24pm
Subject: Microsoft --- Yeah
    Microsoft has written off approximately $750 million in Attorney 
fees and costs on this litigation at the expense of it's 
stockholders:
    1. Under the proposal's terms, Microsoft would have given 
disadvantaged Public Schools more than $1 billion in funding 
software, services and training, and around 1 million Windows 
licenses for renovated PCs.
    2. The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair 
to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of Court of 
Appeals ruling. Still, while consumers overwhelmingly agree that 
settlement is good for them and the American economy overwhelmingly 
want to move beyond this litigation, nine states have refused to 
join the settlement.
    This has been a tremendous cost to the taxpayers because of all 
states where the Attorney Generals have spent millions of dollars on 
this case. We feel the settlement is fair and good for the consumers 
and the economy, in addition to being a tremendous help to the 
school system.
    Sincerely,
    Ray F, and Patricia K. Waker
    3347- W. Sequim Bay Rd.
    Sequim, Wa. 98382
    TAXPAYERS



MTC-00014743

From: Donna Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:35pm
Subject: antitrust law abuse
    Justice Dept: Please do the right thing and keep the law. Let 
Microsoft also keep doing what they have been doing....making 
reasonably priced new programs. I really like their work which is 
easy for a computer dummy like me to use. Let's keep Mircrosoft in 
business, please!!!
    Sincerely,
    Donna Brown



MTC-00014744

From: Peter Skan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir, I would like to submit the following comments on the 
proposed settlement of the United States v. Microsoft case.
    I believe that the remedies described in the proposed final 
judgement are woefully inadequate, either as penalties for 
Microsoft's past abusal of its monopoly power, or to restrain 
Microsoft from similar behavior in the future.
    To be more specific, the proposed settlement:
    1. Does nothing to stop Microsoft illegally bundling middleware 
programs such as media players, browsers and instant messaging 
software, etc. with the operating system. As can clearly be seen in 
the recent release of Windows XP, Microsoft continues to extend its 
monopoly unabated.
    2. Does not remedy the damage done to Netscape and other 
independent browser suppliers.
    3. Does not remedy the damage done to the the Java programming 
language and it's users.
    4. Does nothing to lower the ``application barrier to entry'' 
which was illegally protected by Microsoft.
    5. Is ambiguous and contains many loopholes that are subject to 
Microsoft's interpretation.
    6. Lacks a sufficiently strong enforcement mechanism.
    7. Will do little to change Microsoft's behavior or restore 
competition.
    In summary, the proposed final judgement is not in the interest 
of consumers. Much stronger remedies are required if consumer 
choice, competition and innovation are to be preserved and enhanced. 
In my view the original remedy, which specified the breakup of 
Microsoft, was much more in line with the magnitude of the injuries 
it has caused. N.B. I am a resident of the United Kingdom, but 
nonetheless feel that my views should be taken into account since 
Microsoft's conduct has affected both companies and individuals in 
all parts of the world.
    Yours faithfully,
    Peter Skan
    23 Tarrant Drive
    Harpenden
    Herts
    AL5 1RP
    UK.



MTC-00014745

From: D R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam: I am appalled by the Department of Justice's 
?case? against Microsoft. Even if Microsoft were a ?monopoly? (which 
it isn?t; the ?Bill Gates controls 90% of the market? claim is false 
and bizarre), the government should have no right to prevent private 
monopolies. The Antitrust laws are a mess of contradictory edicts 
intended by their collectivist originators to punish successful 
individuals and businesses simply for being successful. Antitrust 
should be ruled unconstitutional.
    To label as ?criminal? business activities that involve superior 
ability and strategy but

[[Page 25986]]

do not involve physical coercion, to declare honest businesspeople 
to be ?dishonest,? to damn the actual working of the free market, to 
reject and seek to undo by force of law the legal choices of 
millions of consumers worldwide ? is a monstrous thing, an intrusion 
of a gangster into a marketplace, a perversion of justice. Whiners, 
cry-babies, and losers who oppose Microsoft are running to 
Washington to ?correct? the free market. Why? Because Microsoft 
refused to underwrite their aspirations. Because this Big Company 
didn?t behave like Big Daddy and let every two-bit Mom and Pop 
outfit ride to riches on its coattails. The opponents of Microsoft 
are declaring that they are owed not only a living, but also all the 
glory, success, wealth, and adulation that Bill Gates has. But, for 
what? The consumers (I am one of them) didn't agree; the suppliers 
didn't agree; the market, as such, didn't agree. What we?re seeing 
in the loser companies who complained about Microsoft originally 
(consumers love Microsoft, only their competitors do not), is no 
more than a desire for unearned wealth and prestige and an immoral 
feeling of envy and jealousy when they don?t get it. This leads them 
to demand government action ? against someone whose only ?crime? has 
been achieving success in that particular field. The court, at the 
very least, must uphold the free market and the right of property.
    Yes, there will be winners and losers--but as long as no 
physical coercion, or threat thereof, is involved, the winners and 
losers deserve their lot. When businessmen are punished for their 
achievement, and the greater their success the harsher the penalty, 
society is devoured by envy, and the end of that road is the grim 
egalitarianism that has ravaged every socialist wasteland.
    Patti Rowlett
    14444 Beach Blvd, #18-119
    Jacksonville, FL 32250



MTC-00014746

From: Ronald C Steorts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please give serious consideration to the attached letter.



MTC-00014747

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is fair to all parties, is in the public 
interest and should be accepted by the court. Our free enterprise 
system is why we have the strongest economy in the world and the 
most admired society in the world. Let us not hamper this envied 
position with governmental and judicial intervention. To maintain 
and advance this strength into the future we need less governmental 
and judicial intervention-not more. Innovation in all areas of all 
industries is necessary to maintain and enhance productivity to 
remain the world's leading economy and power base. This case is an 
example of innovation being smothered before it has a chance to be 
judged by consumers. In our free society consumers are the ultimate 
judge of products offered for purchase. To date consumers have voted 
in favor of Microsoft products with their purchases. Acceptance of 
this settlement will allow continued product offerings to consumers 
for their vote.
    Thank you,



MTC-00014748

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern, Since America was founded on freedom, I 
find it as my duty as an American citizen to bring up concerns I 
have with a recent ruling. The Proposed Final Judgement is perhaps 
the easiest, but not the best answer to this problem. Microsoft 
should not have the right to cripple modern technology. Our republic 
and business blood line is based on competition. I urge you to 
review violations committed by Microsoft.
    Loyally,
    Christine C. McGill, (352) 846-8578
    CNL Investments Marketing Rep



MTC-00014749

From: John Castelein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:53pm
Subject: MS anti-trust case
    Mz. Hesse, I have received a mailing from a Microsoft 
sympathetic organization that pointed out that there is a public 
comment period and where I might send my thoughts to best be heard. 
My supervisor at work encouraged me to pitch in so I thought I'd put 
in a word from a person intimately familiar with the dynamics of the 
computing industry. My view of this business'' effects (over the 
last 20 years I've been associated with its products, primarily in a 
support role) is that it has admirably worked to create affordable 
products for mass consumption. I've used the resulting products and 
supported them for years and though I often wished they'd be of 
higher dependability and quality, they are flexible enough, powerful 
enough, and inexpensive enough to be made available widely and 
positively impact businesses, home computing users, and advanced 
computing as an efficiency tool worldwide. I think its business 
practices have been rabidly capitalist (unnecessarily so), and 
damaging to firms involved with hardware, software, and even 
creativity in general. The techniques used by it have been seen 
before at least 100 years ago, and resulted in anti-trust 
legislation to protect everyone and promote fair and free commerce. 
Those rules and laws apply very much to the way MS has behaved and I 
don't feel they have been effectively excersized, at all, by the 
government regulators and law enforcement whose responsiblity this 
lies with. I think they should be strongly and immediately employed 
to once again send a message, to all, that free and diverse 
commercial activity is desireable for a healthy capitalist economy 
and desireable to promote and encourage innovation (so that those 
who create the good may be rewarded and thus continue to do so). The 
scope of the harm that has already been done to so many companies 
can only be guessed but is larger than any of us would probably 
guess. (the ``Its a Wonderful Life'' or ``Scrooge'' effect) 
Companies, squashed, products stiffled or acquired cheap, lives 
altered, revenues lost, taxes foregone, jobs eliminated before they 
were even created. That is the cost of the behavior of an 
organization on an unchecked monopolistic rampage, and that is the 
price the world has and will continue to pay as long as just and 
decisive action is withheld.
    From:
    JC, Systems Analyst, BS CS, MBA MIS
    (319) 373-7744



MTC-00014750

From: Peter Burkholder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  6:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to register my oppostion to the proposed remedy in 
its current form. My comments are based on twelve years experience 
as a software developer, systems adminstrator and security manager 
on a variety of hardware platforms and operating systems. Although 
the problems with the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) are many, I 
will only cite a few here.
    1) The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release the format 
specification for Microsoft Office documents. These formats for 
spreadsheets (Excel), documents (Word) and presentations 
(Powerpoint) have become a de facto standard. Competitors in the 
marketplace need to interoperate with these formats and need access 
to the format specifications well before changes are released on the 
market.
    2) The PFJ does not prohibit anti-competitive license terms with 
``enterprise'' users such as universities, corporations or state and 
local governments. The license agreements are often written on a 
``per-processor'' basis, and remove incentive to use non-Microsoft 
operating systems on the covered hardware platforms. Such per-
processor licenses were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree for 
OEMS, and should be extended to all end-users.
    3) The PFJ defines API narrowly, excluding many important 
interfaces to the operating system. It should be extended beyone 
middleware to include all Windows APIs and all network interface 
protocols, including Microsofts extensions to the Kerberos 
authentication protocol.
    Further discussion of the PFJ's shortcomings are detailed in a 
comment from my colleague Dan Kegel. I urge the that this remedy be 
thoroughly revised to adequately curtail Microsoft's historic and 
continuing anti-competitive practices.
    Yours sincerely,
    Peter Burkholder
    2229 S Gilpin St --o
    Denver, CO 80210-4616
    (303) 282-7738

[[Page 25987]]



MTC-00014751

From: Jean Devereaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's put an end to the bickering and settle the case. We don't 
need more litigation.
    L. Jean Devereaux
    Soquel, CA



MTC-00014752

From: Peter (038) Linda Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen: The provisions of the agreement are tough, 
reasonable, fair to all parties involved, and go beyond the findings 
of Court of Appeals ruling. It is my opinion that the best interest 
of the public would be served if the case was settled.
    Thanks . . .  Pete
    Peter F. Smith
    Vendor Account Manager
    Digital Commerce Corporation
    860-767-7722 [OFFICE]
    860-767-7788 [FAX]
    860-227-4433 [MOBILE]



MTC-00014753

From: Scott Leader
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/22/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge, The key word here is options. I don't think 
Microsoft has been fair in allowing other options to make themselves 
known. Not only would more options be present if Microsoft were 
heald more strictly to the anti-trust laws, but also the options 
would be cheaper which in turn would promote spending on more 
computers from the consumer market. This in turn would stimulate the 
computer market. I am not saying that Microsoft is a bad company or 
that their products are bad, I would jsut like to see consumers 
treated better. Give us otions!!
    Thanks For Your Time,
    Mr. Leader



MTC-00014755

From: Jordan Zimmerman
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I'm writing because I understand you're 
soliciting comments on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I want you 
to know that I am strongly opposed to the Anti Trust attack on 
Microsoft. I believe that Microsoft has done nothing wrong and is 
being mugged by its competitors. Bill Gates and Microsoft are 
entitled to the fruits of their labor and property.
    I use Microsoft products every day to make my living. I am not 
forced to do this. In the past, I've worked on products for Apple's 
Macintosh. In the past five years, I decided to switch to developing 
for Microsoft products. The idea that I was compelled to do this 
against my will is insulting.
    Please end this cloud that is hanging over Microsoft and harmed 
countless people.
    Jordan Zimmerman
    Altura International
    Catalog City



MTC-00014756

From: JeanDavid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read attached letter on behalf of the Microsoft 
settlement.
 

MTC-00014756 0001
    37 Crown Point Lane
    Williamsville, NY 14221-1865
    F MERGEFIELD LCSZ Stuart, FL 34994>
    January 22,2002
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    US Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: It is three years later, and we still are 
talking about the Microsoft antitrust case. It certainly is a 
landmark case, and I would like to say that the current settlement 
agreement is in the public interest. Microsoft has endured prolonged 
legal proceedings and negotiations to reach the current agreement. 
Thankfully, it is one that is beneficial to all parties involved. 
The government was able to ensure that consumers and the computer 
industry are protected from unfair business practices. Microsoft has 
now agreed to amend its practices, open up its information, fully 
allow non-Microsoft applications in Windows, and comply with an 
oversight committee monitoring its conduct.
    This is a remarkable achievement and should remain in its 
present form. IF MERGEFIELD PARA2 But clever people like me who talk 
loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate ambiguity. A plea 
for justice in a mechanized society.>
    Microsoft, with its improved practices, is good for our troubled 
economy. While the technology sector experiences decline, the 
company continues to create innovative and high-quality solutions. 
Microsoft supports my work as a computer user, and so I write to you 
today to support Microsoft. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Macdonald
    00014756--0002



MTC-00014757

From: Jim Robichaud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:27pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am often embarrassed admitting I'm a resident of ``The Peoples 
Republic of Massachussets'' Tom Reilly and other AG's extortion of 
Microsoft is just another reason to be embarrassed. Microsoft is not 
an angelic company, but there are valid reason why they achieved 
thier dominant position. Microsoft provides an excellent product and 
offers standardization. I remember the days of not being able to 
transfer data from one application to the other. If microsoft wasn't 
allowed to expand the utility of thier operating systems as judge 
Jackson and others have advocated we might still have to be 
installing print drivers for every application we install instead of 
letting the OS handle it. What people in the Real World--people that 
have to be productive--want is what Microsoft has generally offered.
    Everyone speaking the same ``language'' has greater benefits 
than multiple languages that have only minor improvements over one 
another. The software and OS industry has a built in propensity to 
standardization and that standardization benefits most users. When a 
significant advancement comes along people will slowly evolve to 
that advancement. Technology is always ahead of the masses.
    I'm in the HVAC industry and as an example digital thermostats 
are in every way superior to bi-metal ``round one'' thermostats. 
Digital and programmable t-stats have been around for thirty plus 
years, but they are only now becoming common place. Part of the 
reason for the slow transition is that everyone instinctively knows 
how to operate a ``round one'' thermostat and because of this 
Honeywell dominated the market. (Maybe they should have been sued). 
Ease of use and standardization was more important to people than 
accuracy, comfort and features. In reality digital thermostats are 
very easy to use. The problem lies in the lack of standardization. 
Just because you know how to use your digital thermostat at home 
doesn't mean you'll have an easy time with the one at work or your 
neighbors house. Why so many--because each variation has some minor 
improvement, feature or function that the other doesn't. I'm NOT 
saying that the Government should get involved to promote 
standardization here. That's my whole point. In the software 
industry the people have directed the market toward standardization 
and someday maybe because of accuracy, comfort and features 
Microsoft's ``Windows'' may become just like Honeywell's ``round 
one''. James Robichaud, West Barnstable, MA



MTC-00014759

From: CHAVES,AMY (HP-PaloAlto,ex1)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge, I am a concerned employee in the high tech 
industry. Every court has found that Microsoft has used its 
operating system monopoly to dominate other software markets as 
well, thus violating anti-trust laws. The many billions of dollars 
Microsoft earned illegally from its anti-trust violations are being 
given to the company without penalty. The proposed final judgment 
also does nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing in this 
behavior and would amount to a government mandate of the monopoly. 
With such serious flaws in the proposed U.S. vs. Microsoft 
settlement, I urge you to reject it.
    Respectfully,
    Amy Chaves
    170 Tillman Ave.
    San Jose, CA 95126
    (408) 920-0365



MTC-00014760

From: Feiyun Zhang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I heard that a Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in the U.S. vs. 
Microsoft case is being

[[Page 25988]]

considered currently. As a software developer and a concerned 
citizen, I have serious concerns about the proposed settlement. 
Microsoft has been egregiously abusing its monopoly power to crush 
competition and stymie innovation. Last year Microsoft decided not 
to distribute Java technologies with Windows XP. This is yet another 
example that Microsoft is using it's illegally obtained monopoly 
power to kill innovation and competition. Because its monopoly 
position, consumers are forced to use Microsoft technology and 
software developers are forced to build on Microsoft technology. 
Other innovative technologies like Java are being forced out of the 
picture, not because of lacking of technical merits but because of 
being a competitive technology to Microsoft. This is a very serious 
issue. However the issue is not addressed at all in the proposed 
settlement. In fact the settlement does not address the three key 
elements that my co-workers and I are considered mandatory:
    1. Terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly,
    2. Deny to Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, and
    3. Prevent any future anticompetitive activity.
    I strongly urge you to reconsider the settlement with Microsoft 
and address the above three elements.
    Regards
    Feiyun Zhang
    600 Oracle PKWY
    m/s 6op6
    Redwood Shores
    CA 94065
    Tel 650-5-6-3349



MTC-00014762

From: Ronald Kumon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 20, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse, In accordance with the invitation posted in the 
Federal Register (Vol. 66, No. 229, p. 59452), I wish to have my 
comments regarding the proposed final judgment in the United States 
vs. Microsoft Corporation published in the Federal Register. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly, 
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. As such, the proposed 
settlement is not sufficient because it does little to address the 
underlying problem, namely that Microsoft continues to illegally 
maintain and extend its monopoly.
    Any final remedy which intends to truly provide a just and 
lasting settlement must include the following requirements:
    1. All current and future Microsoft products must be required to 
be extra-cost options on new computers, so that consumers have a 
realistic option to purchase machines without Microsoft software if 
they so choose.
    2. All current and future Microsoft file formats must be opened 
to the public, so that consumers and competitors have the ability to 
use files generated by Microsoft products with other software 
without the producers of that software being at an immediate 
disadvantage. For similar reasons, all current and future 
application program interfaces for Microsoft operating system must 
also be made public.
    3. All current and future networking protocol must be made 
public and approved by a independent network protocol body.
    4. The source code for all Microsoft products must be made 
public, primarily because there is ultimately no other way for 
individuals to ensure that their large, complex products are secure. 
This issue is especially important given their current dominance in 
both the operating system and application markets.
    I believe these kinds of restrictions would let consumers decide 
on software based the quality, price, timeliness, and support, 
rather than having to choose based on backward compatibility and 
unreleased, proprietary information. Microsoft has repeatedly shown 
resistance to moderate its behavior in the marketplace. Therefore I 
urge the court to take a firm stand to relieve the current situation 
and set a precedent so this kind of monopoly does not occur again.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ronald E. Kumon, Ph. D.



MTC-00014763

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:52pm
Subject: Microsft Settlement
    Innovation comes from a free market place not one that's run by 
government. If you force crippling sanctions on Microsoft you will 
go back to the stone age. Ninety percent of the computers use 
Microsoft product for a reason. They are affordable on any persons 
budget consumer friendly, great flexibility. It allows even a 
seventy year old blue collar worker like myself without great effort 
to operate it. This settlement on the table is a plus for the 
consumer. Don't let the states or rivals greed for money stop this.
    Herbert L Holm
    2821 Fairfield Street
    Eureka,California 95501 3524



MTC-00014764

From: Free, Richard
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  7:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good Day, I must express my concern regarding the current PFJ in 
the case against Microsoft. I have been in the computer industry for 
close to a decade and in numerous cases have had occasion to detest 
some of the practices that I see Microsoft engage in. Many of those 
practices have had direct detrimental impact upon my trying to 
establish my own business. They have in the past, on more than one 
occasion, either been convicted of, or settled out of court for, 
practices that are anti-competitive. This most recent ruling is only 
one example of many. In each case the remedies sought have only been 
effective at curtailing practices based on old technology that no 
longer has any bearing. The current case is no different. The court 
MUST find a way to stop their illegal practices in the future. The 
portions of the current PFJ that I am familiar do not do that. One 
portion I find particularly distasteful and downright shameful is 
the requirement that they should donate a certain number of PC's 
running Windows software to schools that don't have them. That is 
not unlike requiring the drug pusher to supply drugs and 
paraphernalia to people that are not users. It gives opportunity to 
have many more people locked into a platform that has already been 
determined to be anti-competitive.
    A far better solution would be to increase the number of 
computers being donated by at least a 100 fold with the caveat that 
those PC's may not be allowed to run any software written, developed 
or sold by Microsoft. Those computers should run some version of 
Linux and they should be supported entirely by monies supplied by 
Microsoft for the entire time that each of the computers are in 
service. In other words as long as any computer donated as part of a 
settlement action is still being used in any capacity, Microsoft 
should pay whatever funds are necessary to support those computers. 
This should include paying for upgrades to memory and hard drives 
and replacement of ANY failed components during the entire time the 
computers are in service.
    Microsoft has used illegal practice to beat competitors into the 
dust. They have been convicted of being a monopolist. Whatever 
settlement there is should be punitive in nature and should have the 
effect of stimulating their competition, weak as it may be, and not 
their user base in any way shape or form. The other effect it should 
have is to discourage such practices by other companies.
    Another suggestion I would make is that they be broken up into 
several different companies. A personal operating systems company, 
an applications company, a server company and a services company. 
These companies should be absolutely separate in all aspects. They 
should publish those parts of their API's that are required to 
interoperate with their software royalty free. In this way others 
will be able to compete on a level playing field that does not 
currently exist. One last point I should make. One of the 
definitions (definition U. to be specific) in the PFJ states in 
part:
    ... The software code that comprises a Windows Operating System 
Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion. 
Microsoft should not be allowed to determine in its sole discretion 
anything of the sort. This is tantamount to a crook being allowed to 
define what theft is and would be a huge hole that Microsoft would 
then use to redefine what an operating system is. This would in 
effect sabotage yet another Federal judgment against them as they 
have done in the past. Instead, outside agencies and experts 
intimately familiar with software development should be the ones 
determining that. An excellent example can be found at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#fix.defs In the past Microsoft has 
been convicted of similar practices and the judgments have done 
nothing to cause them to change their behavior. In fact they

[[Page 25989]]

are more arrogant and brazen now than they were in the past. I 
cannot help but believe that is due in part to past failed and 
insufficient judgments being crafted. I adjure you to craft a 
settlement that will actually have teeth to it. Both punitive and 
preventative in nature. I appreciate the time taken in reviewing 
this. While I am sure it is not as learned as many other objections 
are, it is none-the-less submitted with great concern.
    Thank you.
    Richard Free
    IT Manager
    Peak Industries



MTC-00014765

From: Steven Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:57pm
Subject: End it!
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I urge acceptance of the proposed Final Judgment offered by the 
U.S. Department of Justice and endorsed by nine state attorneys 
general to resolve the antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation. 
I do this solely because it is long past time that this travesty 
end. Antitrust law has become a complete farce, a sacrificial 
pyramid built to the gods of envy and political extortion. It is 
time to end this rank-smelling mess.
    Steven B. Miller
    Editorial Director
    Nevada Policy Research Institute
    Las Vegas, NV (702) 222-0642



MTC-00014766

From: aurelio nunez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:59pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE. YOU WON'T GAIN ANYMORE THAN WE TAXPAYERS 
HAVE PAID OUT. JUST LEAVE THEM ALONE. [email protected]



MTC-00014767

From: Ann Frost
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to express my displeasure with the current Microsoft 
Settlement. It is much too favorable to this company. I recently 
purchased a new computer. To get a computer from my manufacturer of 
choice I had to surrender any choice in the area of operating 
system. The new XP software is a nightmare of complexity. Surely 
there are better minds and better systems that exist but are not 
given equal footing in the consumer market. I wonder if there are 
fewer problems with XP if you also use the Microsoft Browser. As 
long as I still have some choice in that area I will refuse to go 
that route.
    I would urge you to return to the original decision in this case 
and open the market place to all. We need only look at the great 
advances made in automobiles and telephone service to see how 
greatly the consumer benefits when competition exists.
    Ann P. Frost



MTC-00014768

From: Bob Nystrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wrote the stuff below the line yesterday. Today I am fit to be 
tied. The Post Office (Houston, Tx) is distributing Windows XP 
disks. First off, I can't believe that it is legal to distribute and 
promote a private ``for profit'' product in the US Post Office (on 
my nickel, no less). And one from a company that has been declared a 
monopoly, and is the subject of ongoing anti-trust actions!! Is 
there anything in the Bush administration that is not for sale? How 
blatant can you get!
    You guys and this lame ``settlement'' should be run out of town.
    I am 50 and have been in the electronics business since I was 
15. I grew up with computers and have watched the rise of Bill Gates 
& Co. I have several conclusions on the anti-trust case:
    1. There is no one- repeat no one- in this business who doubts 
for one minute that Microsoft is a monopoly. Everyone is looking 
over their shoulder to see if they will be the next casualty. 
Microsoft is not where they are because of good products. The 
products have been forced upon the consumer by leverage of their 
operating system monopoly. This monopoly- through licensing and 
other means- has NOT allowed the consumer to evaluate alternative 
products. I could not buy a PC without Windows. Dell and the others 
COULD NOT sell me one. In my informal polls, the average consumer 
does not understand that Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, etc even come 
from the same company. They do not realize that a PC box from Dell, 
Gateway, IBM, etc are all the same. They think of it as Ford, GM, or 
Honda- which, of course, it isn't. There is no choice.
    2. I would venture that you- the judges, clerks, etc are close 
to my generation. No where is the computer gap more evident. I can't 
believe you have even a clue as to the extent of Gates's reach and 
the significance of complete control of the operating system. This 
monopoly goes way, way beyond steel or the Bells.
    3. The proposed settlement is a joke. It is known in the art 
that Microsoft is a monopoly. They have been legally declared a 
monopoly. And what do you do? This is not even a slap on the wrist. 
And as with every other involvement with Gates, he is telling YOU 
what YOU are going to do. The three person oversight is completely 
ludicrous and unworkable.
    4. In the trenches, the conclusion is that this is a buyoff with 
Bush. This is so blatant there can be no other explanation. As sad 
as Sept 11 was, it provided an excuse for the administration to back 
off of Microsoft. Software types that I run into just write this off 
as a complete sell out by the Justice Department. Your department 
really is the laughing stock of the software community. You can't be 
this clueless, can you? How does this settlement help me, the 
consumer? How does it help the innovative companies that have been 
steamrolled by Microsoft? How? How?
    5. I am sure the boogeyman here is we don't want to hurt the 
economy by upsetting Microsoft. I would posit that 39 billionaires, 
900 multi-millionaires, and 100 just plain millionaires would 
stimulate the economy far more than one ``forty billionaire'' who 
will stop at nothing to own it all. Microsoft does not partner- 
Period.
    6. As XP becomes entrenched, there will be control of so many 
systems and points of distribution that it will make past actions 
look like child's play. It is a Trojan horse. Microsoft is pulling 
out all stops on this one. They are taking no prisoners. You are way 
too little and way too late.
    7. This is the last chance to stop Microsoft. This settlement is 
a disgrace to your office and to this country.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Nystrom
    16 Rhonda Rheault Dr
    Oxford, MA 01540



MTC-00014769

From: Jay Lieske
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern--
    The following is my Tunney Act comments to the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement.
    I do not think that the proposed antitrust settlements with 
Microsoft-- neither the Dept. of Justice's nor the States'' 
proposals--goes far enough to remedy Microsoft's monopolistic 
behavior. There are far too many legal loopholes in the document, so 
that Microsoft will not have to modify its behavior.
    Instead, I believe the best remedy is to force total disclosure 
of all programming interfaces (APIs), file formats, and network 
protocols, used in the major, market-leading Microsoft products 
(including Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet 
Explorer, and Microsoft Media Player), so that a third party can 
create a fully-compatible version of of one or more of these 
products by following the same interfaces, formats, and protocols. 
There must be no omission from the disclosures, as would be allowed 
under the proposed settlement. The key to Microsoft's monopoly is 
that old customers have become locked-in to the Microsoft products. 
For example, producers of third-party desktop operating systems 
cannot compete with Microsoft, because the 3rd party OSs would be 
incompatible with the software written for Microsoft Windows. But if 
Microsoft were forced to open up the interfaces, formats, and 
protocols of Windows, the market would become open, and other 
competitors could come out with new OSs: perhaps one company could 
come out with a more secure OS, and another company could sell a 
more user-friendly OS. Then the companies, Microsoft included, would 
all be competing in an open market, with customers able to choose 
the best product based on features and services. Additionally, it is 
important to remove any language in the settlement that only regards 
commercial competitors or customers of Microsoft. Many of the 
products that compete with Microsoft come from the non-commercial 
world, often created through volunteer labor. Microsoft must also be 
forced to compete with such products in the

[[Page 25990]]

same open market as with commercial products.
    Thank you for listening,
    Jay Lieske
    2625 Adelbert Ave.
    Los Angeles, CA 90039



MTC-00014770

From: Doug Sauder
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/22/02  8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As a concerned citizen, I urge you to reject the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft suit before you. Microsoft's power will 
not be limited one bit by this proposed final judgment, and the 
company will be allowed to retain virtually all the profits it made 
through its anti-trust violations. This solution does nothing to 
stop Microsoft from continuing in its strong-arm tactics, and I ask 
you to vote against it.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Sauder
    2398 Bettona St.
    Livermore, CA 94550
    925-292-6292



MTC-00014771

From: JO ANN HARRIS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let's get on with the settlement. Microsoft has bent over 
backwards to settle and yet only the lawyers are getting rich. I 
have been a user of Microsoft and believe will keep serving the best 
interests of the consumer as they have for years. So the competition 
can't keep up. . . so what!!!!!! Microsoft has long since complied 
with the long list of government regulations. If the government ran 
its business as well as Microsoft we would have a fraction of the 
taxes, graft, laws, etc
    Adam & Jo Ann Schauber
    1727 Fountain View Cr
    Venice, FL 34292



MTC-00014772

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/22/02  8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: This letter is so that I may go on record as 
being a supporter of the proposed settlement that was reached 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. Although I was not 
supportive of the lawsuit against Microsoft in the first place, I 
will stand behind any reasonable agreement that brings an end to the 
senseless litigation that has been plaguing Microsoft.
    There was a time not too long ago, for example, when it took the 
better part of several long hours to produce a reasonably efficient 
database application. With the advent of Microsoft's Windows 
operating system, along with their integrated software suites, this 
task now takes mere minutes. Microsoft has been extremely beneficial 
to the economy in the past, and will continue to do so after this 
settlement. They have agreed not to retaliate against competitors 
who are making and ship software that competes with Microsoft's 
software. This will open-up the market, and encourage their 
competitors to be more innovative.
    Why those in our government think that this sort of innovation 
deserves wrath, rather than praise lies completely beyond my scope 
of understanding. In any event, there is now a settlement on the 
table. This settlement is more than fair, given the dubious 
intentions of the lawsuit to begin with. It is my hope that this 
settlement will prevail and that those in government can get on with 
far more important issues.
    In addition, Microsoft stock was and is a significant of my 
retirement portfolio and I am not at all please with what this 
litigation has done to the value of my Microsoft Investments. 
Sincerely,
    C. Sam Benson
    Coach C. Sam Benson
    Success Coach
    Personal & Business
    Human Dynamics Resources
    11812 CR 76
    Findlay, OH 45840
    419-424-0248



MTC-00014773

From: DJ EAsterbrook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
508 Ridgeway Drive
Bellingham, WA 98225
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft: I'm writing to urge you to accept the terms 
of the settlement recently reached between Microsoft and the United 
States Justice Department. The settlement will result in a much more 
competitive environment beneficial for all parties involved.
    Microsoft has, for example, agreed to grant broad new rights to 
computer manufacturers and software developers to configure Windows 
to promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with 
Microsoft programs included within Windows. This means computer 
manufacturers can replace Internet Explorer with Netscape Navigator; 
Microsoft Media Player with RealPlayer; and Windows Messenger with 
AOL Instant Messenger. Microsoft has further agreed to not retaliate 
against computer makers and software developers who choose to take 
this route, nor will Microsoft retaliate against computer makers who 
ship competing operating systems. Overseeing the terms of the 
settlement will be a Technical Committee comprised of three persons 
who are software engineering experts. This Technical Committee will 
assist in any dispute resolution, should a complaint be filed.
    Based on these facts, I respectfully request you to accept the 
terms of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Don Easterbrook



MTC-00014775

FROM: Jack Noel
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/22/02 8:24pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of a competitor's platform, operating system and 
Netscape browsers, I'd like to thank the Court for the work that has 
been done to arrive at a Final Judgment in the Microsoft case. I 
endorse and applaud the settlement. But, as a citizen of Michigan, 
(one of the plaintiff states), I am concerned that remedies do not 
go far enough. Michigan has launched an initiative to promote 
computer-based education and my investigation shows that past 
invasive practices of Microsoft has subverted this. Also, as a low-
income user of a non-Microsoft platform/OS, I find that I'm 
significantly impaired and partially barred from enrolling and 
participating in Michigan's online education program (Michigan 
Virtual University). I can enroll, I can do course work, but the 
instructors have no way of monitoring portions of my course work.
    So it appears to me that prior monopolistic practices of 
Microsoft have undly influenced those who planned and created 
``MVU.'' The software developed for this education ``institution'' 
is designed with the assumption that all students and techers will 
be using a PC with Windows OS installed. This has damaged me, in the 
sense that I'm hampered in taking online courses here, should I want 
to do so. When I inquired about this with MVU, I was told that Apple 
Computer had been unable to come up with software that would make 
their computers and OS fully inter operable with MVU's system. While 
this situation may indeed be resolved by Apple Engineering, it will 
take time and no one cn say how long,it wil take. Still unanswered 
is the question of why those responsible acted on the assumption 
that we are in an ``all Microsoft / PC World.''
    I can only add that Microsoft's recent self-serving effort to 
``make good'' with state education systems by providing another 
flood of inferior software / hardware was another concern. But I see 
the states, in their wisdom, rejected this offer. So, my opinion is 
in favor of imposing the Final Judgment as described in documents 
posed on the Justice Dept. website.
    Thank you,
    Jack R. Noel
    Ann Arbor, Michigan



MTC-00014776

From: Andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement --Please read all the way through 
before passing judgement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I just wanted to make a comment on the whole concept of placing 
a lawsuit against Microsoft. It occurs to me that Microsoft simply 
wrote a program that runs on a computer. Plain and simple; a basic 
fact. This program can, however, have other programs run from within 
it that were not written by Microsoft. People sell these programs. 
This ability is a bonus to those people that write this additional 
software. Microsoft does not

[[Page 25991]]

have to make it easy for other people, besides Microsoft employee's 
to write software for the main body of the program.
    The mere fact that they, (Microsoft), write tools and document 
how-to's, are a definite sign that Microsoft supports the users that 
want to take advantage of the OS/Program to its fullest. Suppose for 
instance that the DOJ wrote a program that ran directly on hardware, 
written is assembly for the sake of argument, and it took years of 
development and many revisions. Now, someone found that you made an 
interface that was easily accessible, and programs could be written 
to run off of it, making the original software better? They sold 
this addition and made money based on the current function of the 
DOJ OS/Software?
    Now imagine that you, the writer of the original software wanted 
to make a change(s), that would enhance the overall operation of the 
software, helping all those that use the program at the DOJ out, 
making their lives easier? Now imagine that that programmer that 
wrote the parasite program sued you because the enhancement you made 
created a conflict within his software that made it impossible to 
run? Do you think that this lawsuit is just? What if you, wrote 
tools to help that programmer make changes to his original software 
to help him out, make it easier to make a revision? Do you think he 
should be grateful? Think about it. The suit against Microsoft is 
?injustice? by definition.
    A programmer,
    Andrew S Chadick
    Paulson Computer Systems, Inc.
    253-581-3150
    7501 Bridgeport Way W
    Lakewood, WA 98499
    By the way, ? the changes that Microsoft is currently making? 
ie, the ones that are phasing out MS-DOS, are stopping our software 
from being able to run? Are we complaining? NO. We are thankful that 
we had a good run using the OS's that Microsoft made, i.e. Dos 5.0 ? 
Win2k. . .  We have made hundreds of revisions over the years.
    And, WE will adapt; write the software again new; and make use 
of the new languages and tools now available by Microsoft.



MTC-00014777

From: Stephen Lucas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:28pm
Subject: My Comments
    This is Stephen Lucas, just a simple computer user, a real 
estate broker, without ties to the companies involved, and I am 
voicing my complaint about one issue in the Microsoft lawsuit 
pertaining to alleged damages to Netscape. I remember when Netscape 
went public with it's IPO, and that was the first time I learned 
what this internet thing was about and how to access it. The problem 
was that Netscape was charging the public for software to access the 
internet, up to $40. Later, Microsoft came out with a free browser, 
Internet Explorer, which was distributed with my new computer and 
was available free through a MSN CD-rom received in the mail. As a 
consumer, Microsoft did me and millions of other consumers a lot of 
justice, of distributing this free browser. This is not a crime. 
Netscape deserved to lose business for gouging the public with their 
monopoly browser at the time. Leave free market capitalism alone, 
and dismiss this frivolous law suit. The cost of this lawsuit will 
only be passed on to us consumers.



MTC-00014778

From: Cheryl Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:33pm
Subject: Public Comment
    Dear Sirs:
    I believe that Microsoft has been put through enough. As a daily 
computer user, I feel it is in this nation's best interest. . .  and 
the best interest of the consumer. . .  for Microsoft to receive 
this settlement and to finally end this travesty on our economy. 
It's time to get on with re-building our economy, especially through 
the technology and creativity that Microsoft has developed (and 
will, hopefully continue to develop). Let's end the injustice of 
persecuting Microsoft. Let's begin the next generation of computer 
improvements.
    Cheryl Williams
    1300 Lapwing
    Edmond,OK 73003



MTC-00014779

From: Tracy LaGrone
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 20, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    I am a CPA employed by a large computer software company, and I 
would like to add my two cents to the proposed settlement between 
the DOJ and Microsoft. First of all, I agree with most of the third 
party analyses, which came out when the proposed settlement was 
announced. Most analysts thought that the settlement was highly 
favorable to Microsoft. I agree with their assessment, and share 
their puzzlement about why Microsoft deserved a favorable 
settlement. I could understand giving a favorable settlement to a 
company that admitted guilt, was a first time offender, and had 
agreed to change it's ways, but none of those descriptions apply to 
Microsoft. This is their second time in front of the courts on this 
issue, having apparently learned nothing from their first brush with 
the law in 1995. The weak settlement from the first case was 
directly responsible for the second court case. I am afraid that if 
the settlement goes through as proposed, there will inevitably 
follow (if the DOJ doesn't completely play dead) a third case. 
History and this court case have shown that when it comes to 
competing in the marketplace, Microsoft is not a company that is 
greatly troubled about ethics and morals. For example, this fall 
while their case was on appeal, Microsoft blocked users of a 
competing Internet browser from accessing the MSN community of 
websites. Microsoft claimed that the competing browser did not 
correctly implement some of the Internet standards. Only when it was 
demonstrated that Microsoft's browser also did not correctly 
implement the same standards, and that the browser from Opera was 
more compatible with the standards than Microsoft's did they relent 
and allow the competing browser to be used. The transparency of some 
of Microsoft's explanations can leave even the most ardent of 
Microsoft supporters speechless with embarrassment. Microsoft 
continues to insist that they are innocent even after losing 8-0 at 
the Appeals court. Innovation is a word that Microsoft has been 
hiding behind for quite some time. Microsoft persists in believing 
that it can take any anticompetitive action it wants as long as they 
call it ``innovation''. Is an unrepentant, two time offender the 
kind of company that should get a favorable settlement? The history 
of this case, and common sense argue quite forcefully that the 
answer is no.
    The DOJ has not provided a convincing ``in the public interest 
argument'' for their weak settlement. In order to learn to be a good 
corporate citizen, Microsoft needs a punishment that it cannot 
rationalize away. Unrepentant companies like Microsoft need a strong 
punishment that will convince them of their guilt, and that will 
deter future illegal acts.
    Punishment That leads to one of the biggest arguments against 
the proposed settlement. There is absolutely not punishment in it. 
Basically, under the terms of the proposed settlement, all Microsoft 
has to do is to behave legally and ethically, like they should have 
been doing from the very beginning, for a period of several years 
and all will be forgiven and forgotten. There is no punishment, not 
even a small fine for a company that is sitting on 30 billion in 
cash and cash equivalents. This also means that Microsoft gets to 
keep the market position it gained from its illegal behavior. Who 
would propose a policy that let robbers keep the goods they stole as 
long as they behaved in the future? Yet, that is exactly what this 
settlement proposes to do. APIs and Interfaces One very specific 
part of the settlement of the settlement that needs to change are 
the provisions that call for Microsoft to publish their interfaces 
and to cooperate with all companies who want their software to run 
on or in cooperation with their software. Specifically, the 
settlement says that Microsoft and Microsoft alone get to determine 
what is, or is not a business. 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''. Not 
only does

[[Page 25992]]

Microsoft get to specifically exclude its biggest competition, it is 
the judge and jury in deciding what constitutes a business.
    This part of the agreement needs to be re-written so that all 
APIs and interfaces that are necessary to interoperate with 
Microsoft software are open to everyone, regardless of their status. 
Java The states opposing the settlement have a very good idea when 
they want Microsoft to include the Java computer language as a 
standard part of it's operating system. Java is a powerful force for 
competition in the computing world because it is platform neutral. 
That means that a program written in Java can run on any operating 
system. By forcing Microsoft to include Java, that will encourage 
programmers to write Java programs which means they will 
automatically be writing programs for competing operating systems at 
the same time. Having more programs available for competing 
operating systems, makes the competing operating system attractive 
to end users. Microsoft knows that Java has the affect of making the 
specific operating system less important.
    That is why they dropped it from their latest version of Windows 
even though it costs Microsoft nothing and would make the computing 
experience for their customers better. To foster competition, the 
final settlement should force Microsoft to include Java with their 
operating system for a reasonable period of time. The settlement as 
it is proposed does not protect the public interest. The court 
should not rubber stamp a weak settlement for the sake of disposing 
of the case. The software development portion of the U.S. economy is 
too important to let wrongs go uncorrected. The American consumers 
deserve an active and competitive computer software marketplace, and 
the Microsoft competitors who have played by the rules and been 
damaged by Microsoft's actions deserve relief and justice.
    Regards,
    Tracy W. LaGrone
    3453 Greystone Dr.
    Austin, TX 78731



MTC-00014780

From: Brett James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current line of thinking with the 
settlement. While I agree it is time consuming and expensive process 
to bring things to a conclusion, I think that with the high-level of 
involvement computers have in every business in the country, we are 
running a serious risk of falling even further behind other 
countries who are finding themselves more free to use other, more 
appropriate platforms and applications. Many U.S. businesses are 
being cornered into a set of products that is often inferior--
especially in terms of security--to those used by our european and 
asian counterparts. In the long run, we will lose the one thing that 
has kept our trade in check with countries that have less expensive 
labor: our superior management skills.
    Brett James



MTC-00014781

From: Charles Bateman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  8:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Technology Coordinator at a Knox County Middle School. I 
spend 3-4 hours every day keeping the computers our teachers and 
students use up and running. These are relatively new, already 
upgraded, and are used by a staff that has undergone extensive 
training. Microsoft's proposal to settle their lawsuit by giving 
older computers to poor schools is total lunacy. Schools are 
drowning under the strain of keeping their computers running now. We 
are the third largest system in the state and we have five 
technicians to repair all of our computers, TVs, overhead 
projectors, et al. If Microsoft wants to do something for the 
schools, let them pay for a technician in each school in the US. Or 
even better, let them donate Apple products to the schools, they 
require less experience, less maintenance, and last longer.
    Thank you,
    Charles M. Bateman



MTC-00014782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft, as now framed, is clearly in the 
best interests of the public--particularly in the light of our 
sluggish economy. Whatever its sins have been, it has certainly been 
whipped enouigh by now--and no-one can deny the contributions 
Microsoft's inventiveness and innovations have made to our growth 
and prosperity over the past decade. It's time to free that energy 
from the constraints of needless ongoing litigation which may serve 
the egos and ambitions of a few at the cost of the rest of us who 
are content with the reparations already made and offered.
    The prosecutorial energy that seems to abound in the breasts of 
those who seek to persist in flogging this company would be better 
directed against the likes of ENRON which has caused real damage to 
so many, as well as against those whose collaboration or 
inattentiveness have permitted that company's abuses to go unchecked 
for so long.
    Why has there not been similar scrutiny and attack upon the 
practices of those major oil interests which have been permitted to 
join forces and either support or turn a blind eye to the 
intentional price gouging which i s causing major damage to our 
economy? Or the ongoing elimination of competition by the unassailed 
merger of major banking interests?



MTC-00014783

From: Alison Appel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotally, After a lengthy process, our court 
system found Microsoft Corporation guilty of violating anti-trust 
laws in this country. The suggested settlement is nothing more than 
a slap on the wrist and does not address the future or provide 
retributions to those harmed. This proposed settlement does not 
terminate Microsoft's illegal monopoly nor does it force them to 
change their future business practices to prevent more 
anitcompetitive actions. It is laden with loopholes that Microsoft 
will use to continue business as usual. It also does not calculate 
revenues gained by these practices and provide retribution to those 
businesses which were affected.
    Don't be swayed by the stock market or other pressures. Remember 
that other people lost their jobs or money by Microsoft's actions 
and will continue to if you allow the proposed settlement to go 
through. There is room for competition in the software industry. It 
is your job now to ensure it and to make a bottom line settlement 
where Microsoft will remember it's past and not repeat it!
    Sincerely.
    Alison S. Appel --
    437 Hoffman Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94114
    415.642.3522



MTC-00014784

From: RobAnn Mateja
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to express my opinion regarding the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. In short, I'd like to see the matter settled, as 
proposed, so we can all move on. This suit was never about 
consumers; it was always about Microsoft's competitors. Besides, 
with Linux and Apple gaining strength, I am not even convinced it is 
a monopoly, as the courts contend. Please quit wasting the 
taxpayers'' money and trying to destroy a great American company in 
the process. Thanks.



MTC-00014785

From: no
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I dont think the settlement is enough, we need to do one thing: 
disable any attemps to make the os priopetory or use priopetoryness 
to squash any sort of opensorce software. If you dont stop them from 
doing that, they will just enhance their already-bad trust.



MTC-00014786

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:08pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
January 22, 2002
From: Ernie Welcker
California U.S.A.
To: Renata B. Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
    As I type and e-mail this correspondence, a great deal of 
gratitude must be extended to Microsoft in providing the means to do 
so. Continued efforts by Microsoft makes it possible for me to 
remain on-line with the latest advancements in software technology 
at no further cost to me. Heck, I don't even have to stand in line 
for the ongoing, varied practical gratuities that are always offered 
at great convenience: and that's my contention in morally supporting 
Microsoft against any anti-trust action.

[[Page 25993]]

    The point is, nobody at Microsoft put a gun at my head while 
purchasing their initial required hardware and software. What really 
irks me is that enviable competitors have decided to grovel at the 
feet of powerful brokers to--in effect--put a gun at Microsoft's 
head to cease and desist in their overwhelming superior 
productivity. I should add that not all my computer and related 
wireless products are made by Microsoft. A real monopoly, in other 
words, cannot exist in the business world; only among government 
entities (and that is precisely where no competition is allowed for 
fear of going to jail or worse).
    America must remain a land of opportunity, even for those 
individuals who may eventually trump Microsoft at their own game. . 
. . Meanwhile, private property rights must exist for any ambitious 
enterprise to succeed--minus any vicious acts of force or fraud.
    Hence, I hereby advocate the repeal of all anti-trust laws. 
Favoring one business over another is not a legitimate function of 
government in a free world. Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal 
of respect for the legal profession. A solemn court house is surely 
preferable over a bloody battlefield to settle any differences 
objectively.
    THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014787

From: Tom B Ballard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Anti Trust Case
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Thankfully a settlement has been reached in this costly 
Microsoft Anti Trust case. It seems to me that it is fair for all 
parties and certainly good for the American consumer. Now is the 
time for the parties to act on the settlement requirements, shake 
hands and get on with the important business of working on computer 
security systems that would stop hackers in their tracks. Now that 
would be in the public interest!!!
    Lets not forget that Microsoft played a key role in giving the 
American people young and old the tools to waltz right into the 
computer age. We must be thankful for that just as we are thankful 
for the Wright Brothers.
    Wishing you a pleasant day and thank you for your service to our 
country.
    Cordially,
    Wilma Ballard
    2600 Briggs Chaney Rd.
    Silver Spring, MD 20905
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014788

From: John (038) Anna Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its about time to close out this litigation. Why are we wasting 
more taxpayer's money to put down US business. Do we want to make 
India or some other foreign county the leader in software?
    Sun Microsystems should compete in the open market and not use 
the courts to try to make them competitive.
    John C. Baker
    4014 Font Hill Drive
    Ellicott City, MD 21042-5616
    410 465 8558



MTC-00014789

From: Kirk Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hate Microsoft!!



MTC-00014790

From: Steve Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:44pm
Subject: Re: U.S. v. Microsoft: Settlement Information
    I support severe punishment for microsoft actions, in the amount 
equal to the size that the company has become. It seems likely that 
most if this companies gains were made illegally and should be taken 
away. The damage caused is unlikely to be restored because of its 
ruthless destruction of smaller members of the computer industry. 
Untold billions are lost because this monopoly has not needed to 
produce quality secure programs. Choice is not readily available and 
competition is stifled. The paid journalists writing in false 
praise, and lobbyists bribing our government are a corruption of 
society and a mockery of justice. Our interests are best served by 
an example being made of them in this case.
    Respectively,
    Citizen
    USA



MTC-00014791

FROM: Home
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/22/02 10:00pm
SUBJECT: Microsoft Settlement
1583 Laclede Road
South Eulid, OH 44121-3011
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It recently has come to my attention that the federal government 
is considering public comments on the Microsoft antitrust case to 
determine if the settlement actually serves the public interest. I 
would like to take this opportunity to express my opinion that the 
settlement does in fact meet the needs of the public interest.
    I have followed this case for years, and I believe it is high 
time that both the government and Microsoft return to work. 
Microsoft will return to work with improved business practices that 
will ensure equity in the computer industry and choice for 
consumers. The corporation will comply with an impartial technical 
committee that will monitor its actions and assist in dispute 
resolution.
    The government can return to work with the countless other 
pressing issues that face us at this time. I would like to see this 
matter resolved, and I am confident that the current settlement 
agreement is satisfactory to all involved parties. As a computer 
user, I support Microsoft and its quality products, and as an 
American I support the hard work of our public servants such as you.
    thank you for your valuable time.
    Sincerely,
    James Day



MTC-00014792

From: rcmoore--1
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To : The Department of Justice
From: The Public Consumer
    Sir:
    Please put an end on this case against MIcrosoft, give Microsoft 
freedom to serve the consumers. For my point of view, Microsoft had 
not done anything wrong except protecting there product, making sure 
that the consumers will have an easy understanding and access on 
variety of new technology.
    Please be on the side of the consumers and not with the 
competitors.
    Thank you and God Bless you.
    Sincerely,
    Catalina Moore
    Consumer



MTC-00014793

From: Don Small
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Leadership in technology has made America the world leader in 
virtually all fields. It is with this in mind that I ask you to 
implement the Microsoft Settlement. Fairness should be the goal, not 
punishment.
    Technology companies are making the market competitive, despite 
the power Microsoft has gained.
    Thousands, like myself, are turning to Linux and other operating 
systems, because they are better, not because a government lawsuit 
will cripple Microsoft. Open fair competition will make the 
difference.
    Sincerely,
    Don Small
    816 Cumberland
    Burlington, KS 66839



MTC-00014794

From: Duncan K. Law
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We have learned that a settlement has been reached in the 
Justice Department's antitrust suit against the Microsoft 
Corporation. The both of us support this settlement, and think it is 
in the best interests of the government to accept it.
    By accepting the settlement, Microsoft will not be getting off 
easy, as its critics would like you to believe. The settlement was 
reached after extensive negotiations with a

[[Page 25994]]

court-appointed mediator. Microsoft has agreed to license its 
Windows operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers 
on identical terms and conditions, including price. Also, they have 
agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors various 
interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system products. 
Furthermore, Microsoft has agreed to the establishment of a three 
person technical committee that will monitor Microsoft's compliance 
with the settlement, and assist with dispute resolution. We ask that 
the government leave Microsoft alone by not pursuing further legal 
action against them.
    Sincerely,
    Flora & Duncan Law
    3415 Franklin Avenue
    Astoria, OR 97103



MTC-00014795

From: Sallie Rueter, UBC
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ron and Sallie Rueter
2113 108th Street S.E.
Everett, WA. 98208
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft Corporation and the Department of Justice have 
finally agreed to terms on a settlement that will put an end to the 
antitrust issue which has lasted for over three years. We are 
writing this letter so that we may go on record as supporting the 
settlement, and would also like to ask that it be implemented as 
soon as possible. Enough is enough; this has gone on for too long. 
The government needs to shift their focus to more relevant and 
pressing issues such as divesting the Enron executives of the 
illegal proceeds from their insider stock sales prior to the demise 
of the company and requiring those funds replace the 401k and 
retirement fund monies their employees lost when they were barred 
from selling their stock. I guess it took a huge business failure 
like Enron and a recession to open-up some eyes in Washington.
    We can't understand why Microsoft continues to be under fire, we 
do not see their competitors being subject to such treatment. Nor do 
we see their competitors doing much but whining and urging anyone 
they can get to listen to prolong the issue. Now AOL (was this part 
of the purchase agreement with Netscape?) has brought suit against 
Microsoft. That bandwagon is getting mighty crowded.
    Where are all of their donations to schools--apparently they 
spent all their money in Washington DC? Do you really think AOL has 
any consumers'' interests in their plans? In addition we feel AOL, 
Sun Microsystems and the other competing businesses in all the hold-
out states should also have technical oversight committees assigned 
to test their compliance with good business practices. The 
settlement is reasonable, even with the oversight committee, and the 
government should be satisfied and let Microsoft get back to their 
business.
    The lawsuit is over, but their competitors are still trying to 
force the issue so Microsoft has to concede even more. It sounds 
like the agendas of the competitors should be questioned. I would 
ask that the Enron issues be examined as closely as Microsoft has 
been, but given Enron's level of political contributions, I'm sure 
that won't happen. Wouldn't it be nice if the people in Washington 
DC who could make a difference actually did?
    Sincerely,
    Ron and Sallie Rueter



MTC-00014796

From: Mr O
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:22pm
Subject: Microsoft's exploits
    To the honorable judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    I am writing you as many others are in regards to the concern of 
Microsoft's business practices. Microsoft is a company that hinders 
the freedom of every computer user out there. As you know they 
represent a majority of the desktop market in the technology 
industry. It is only here in the US that the majority of desktop 
computers actually have a valid license though. Many other countries 
resort to piracy because of Microsoft's pricing. If you've read 
technology headlines of any lately you'll notice many countries are 
making a switch to other operating systems such as Linux.
    Linux as you may have heard is generally free. Most major 
distributors of the linux operating system freely give away their 
product via download or offer boxed sets with support options. By 
offering a stable reliable operating system for a cost of next to 
nothing but time many government agencies around the world including 
the USA have been embracing this operating system as a means of 
cutting costs and saving millions upon millions of dollars in 
licensing costs for years to come. Further evaluation of Microsoft's 
practices will show they are making every attempt possible to ensure 
customers are caught in an agreement which guarantees Micro$oft an 
income while guaranteeing the consumer nothing at all.
    Already in place in Microsoft's latest operating system XP and 
their OfficeXP product are agreements and practices more of an 
annoyance than a protection. They are only trying to protect 
themselves in these manners and are causing more of a headache for 
the consumer.
    This letter is of more importance to show you the exploits of 
Microsoft and to make you aware there are other operating systems 
and standards available. Microsoft has done it's best to exploit Sun 
and the Java standards, Apple and it's entire product line, as well 
as making every effort to conquer AOL in the ISP front by 
purchasing/forcing many smaller ISP's out of business and even 
handling ISP account related to QWest's DSL service. Many customers 
are given little to no choice when such changes are made.
    To end, I even sympathize with the poor soul who distributed the 
notice I received about the Microsoft gameplay as I noticed it was a 
``.doc'' type file which is proprietary to Microsoft's Office 
product. Fortunately I use an Open Source (free) word processing 
program which allows me to read such a file and even save to such an 
evil format should I desire.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Mike Owen
    [email protected]
    P.S. As a final wish. . .  The latest settlement requiring 
Microsoft to pay/donate millions of dollars in equipment to schools 
should be payed out in ONLY hardware. Surely there are enough 
companies willing to DONATE an operating system for the hardware. 
America is freedom is it not? Thank you. God bless.



MTC-00014797

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:27pm
Subject: Please just use your common sense and KNOCK of this stupid 
witch hunt. . . .
    Please use your common sense and knock off this stupid witch 
hunt. Microsoft has already settle just fine. As a computer user for 
years I am disgusted at the way Microsoft is being targeted forever. 
DROP IT. Get over it.
    Thank you.
    Dr. Adrian Travis
    PO Box 7
    Jacksonville, FL 32210
    (904) 388-0054



MTC-00014800

From: Melissa Parsons
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Melissa Parsons
8107 Winsford Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90045
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather 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 25995]]

entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Melissa Parsons



MTC-00014801

From: Stanley Shimkus
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  7:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley Shimkus
30166 willow springs rd
flat rock, MI 48134
January 22, 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,
    Stanley J Shimkus



MTC-00014802

From: Gonzalo H. Iglesias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gonzalo H. Iglesias
66 Gables Boulevard
Weston, FL 33326
954 385-7311
[email protected]
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The Justice Department and Microsoft have been tied up in a 
court battle for the past three years, and for the past six months, 
negotiations have taken place under the supervision of a court 
appointed mediator.
    Microsoft has, I think, been dealt with fairly in the 
settlement, and I do not believe further litigation is necessary. 
Unfortunately, nine plaintiff states involved in the case do not 
agree. They are currently seeking to overturn the settlement and 
bring further suit against Microsoft. This matter has been pending 
for far too long , unfortunately to no one's benefit except the 
highly rewarded lawyers to the detriment of the consumers like 
myself. Therefore I feel that it is about time for the case to come 
to a quick conclusion.
    I believe Microsoft has the right to remain in control of its 
own software, but I believe the terms of the agreement are 
beneficial because they allow more freedom on the part of the user. 
By comparison, I look at other major Companies Ford, Mercedes Benz, 
Bacardi. .etc. We could all say that these other companies hold a 
monopoly as well.Will all these companies be required to comply with 
policies being asked of Microsoft? Under the terms of the 
settlement, Microsoft will be required to disclose source code for 
use by its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to reformat future 
versions of Windows so that the operating system will support non-
Microsoft software. Now, computer users whose computers run on 
Windows will have the ability to configure Windows as they see fit. 
I am pleased that the suit did not result in Microsoft's division 
into smaller parts, and I believe that this settlement is in the 
best interest of both computer makers and the consumer.
    Mr. Ashcroft, I do not believe further litigation is at all 
necessary. Such litigation will only increase not only the 
governments'' costs which in the end is the taxpayers, like myself. 
Pushing the issue any further would be totally counterproductive and 
would be, I believe, ultimately detrimental to the economy, the 
technology industry, and the American people. I urge you to support 
the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Signed,
    Gonzalo H. Iglesias
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014803

From: Eileen (038) Jack G
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2649 W Ceyanne Circle
Tucson, Arizona 85741
January 19, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Your unyielding support of the settlement that was achieved in 
the Microsoft antitrust case is needed.
    After three years of holding Microsoft in court the settlement 
represents the best way to set Microsoft free from federal 
litigation.
    Unfortunately there are those who would like to have this 
settlement discarded and this case brought right back to court. 
Their priority is too see Microsoft harmed and impeded in the 
courts, not to see more competition. Thankfully this settlement will 
bring more competition to the IT industry. The settlement 
necessitates Microsoft to share vital code, including internal 
interfaces, with competitors. With this non-Microsoft companies will 
be able to create better software and compete better with Microsoft.
    It would be a great development if the federal antitrust case 
could finally terminate. I think that you should promote this 
settlement and help to end this case so our economy can move 
forward.
    Sincerely,
    Jack Glickman & Eileen Glickman



MTC-00014804

From: Lia Olivieri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am the consumer that your ``inquisition'' should be protecting 
(to improve competition, lower prices, etc.etc.). I, THE CONSUMER, 
AM SAYING :STOP ! I like Microsoft, I choose Microsoft, I believe 
the price is fine, so what now ? My government should better spend 
my tax money going after Bin Laden that Microsoft !
    If I could, I would suggest Microsoft to relocate outside the 
USA : I will continue to purchase its products and another Country 
will benefit of its success : We, the American, do NOT deserve it !
    Regards,
    Lia Olivieri
    New York
    CC:CMDC/[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014805

From: Haradon Zeb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:00pm
Subject: In regards to Microsoft antitrust case
    It is my understanding that the Department of Justice is seeking 
public comment on the Microsoft settlement. My intention in this 
letter is to state my opinion on this matter. First, I would like to 
explain that I believe any producer (an individual or a business), 
has the right to produce or legally acquire a product or service and 
offer it for sale under any conditions they deem fair, if such 
merchandise is represented accurately. As a consumer, I should have 
the right to accept their offer or refuse it. In the case of 
Microsoft, this right has not been infringed. Never have I felt 
compelled to purchase a Microsoft product or service. I am not aware 
of any action Microsoft has taken to force me to purchase any of 
their products or services. I have explored other operating systems, 
such as MacOS, Unix, and Linux, and have remained a user of 
Microsoft Windows due to its superior stability and usability. I 
have also exercised the choice not to use Microsoft products in 
certain cases. For example, I have used MSN Messenger Service, and 
ultimately uninstalled it from my system because I was unhappy with 
it's performance. I now use the competitor's products ICQ and Yahoo 
Messenger. I will reiterate: Microsoft has never interfered with my 
choice as a consumer to choose which product I want to use. The 
reason Microsoft has a large market share in certain areas is 
because they excel in those areas. I do not consider bundling 
software (such as the Internet Explorer web

[[Page 25996]]

browser) with the operating system to be a limiting of my choices.
    On the issue of misrepresentation, if it could be shown that 
Microsoft has intentionally written code into the Windows Operating 
System which would cause other applications to not work, without 
warning consumers of this so that they could make an informed 
decision, then this would be a case where they had limited consumer 
choice. To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has not done this.
    For these reasons, I recommend the absolute minimum penalty, 
preferably none at all, as Microsoft's punishment in this trial.
    Thank you for your time,
    Zeb Haradon
    127 W. Inglenook Drive, Apt. 2305
    Midvale, UT 84047



MTC-00014806

From: Bruce Gibby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion this entire prosecution has been a sham and 
instigated by the wealthy, yet inept, second-tier Silicon Valley 
billionaires (Oracle, Sun, et.al.). As a user of Microsoft products 
(home and office) and Oracle Financial products (office), I can 
unequivocally state that Microsoft products tend to work as promised 
with a fairly high degree of reliability, whereas Oracle Financial 
products are complex, poorly designed, overpriced, and therefore, a 
rip-off. I suggest you contact any of the many Oracle CRP users and 
obtain their frank and honest reactions. The DoJ has been 
prosecuting the WRONG company.
    Not on any software company's pay sheet,
    L. Bruce Gibby, Ph.D.



MTC-00014807

From: Barbara Haugen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern;
    As a Microsoft user, I find it ludicrous that as a consumer of 
their products, even if I WAS being damaged by their marketing 
practices, I WOULD NOT RECEIVE A DIME! But, their main competitors 
will be ``paid off''. . . . Something is wrong with this picture. 
This suit should NEVER have been brought against Microsoft. It most 
definitely sets a dangerous precedent, for obvious reasons. Please 
bring this chapter of economic skulldugery to an end, ASAP. This 
whole witch hunt has been an acute embarrassment for the Justice 
Department and a drain on the taxpayers of America. Enough, already.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Haugen
    Cedar City, UT



MTC-00014808

From: Dan Trevino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:21pm
Subject: Oppose
Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft corp. The 
judgment does not address the serious anti-competitive practices 
that Microsoft continues to employ.
    I believe Microsoft should be forced to allow other html 
rendering engines (browsers) to be integrated with all Windows 
operating environments. Microsoft can continue to assure the (albeit 
questionable) quality of their customer's experience by making 
available the Application Programming Interface (API) used to 
integrate Internet Explorer into Windows. In addition, I believe 
Microsoft's exclusive licensing practices with OEM computer 
manufacturers limits customer choice and has been the main limiting 
factor in the lack of further competition in the Operating System 
market.
    In conclusion, I believe that unless substantial revisions are 
made to the final judgment, Microsoft will continue to exercise its 
monopoly power to the detriment of the computer industry and 
consumers.
    Thank you.
    Daniel Trevino
    President
    bluemagnet, llc
    5710 Valley Point
    San Antonio, TX 78233



MTC-00014809

From: gregory ernst snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Thank you for permitting me to submit comments on the case of 
United
    States v. Microsoft Corporation. Since I'm sure you don't want 
to hear arguments about the case (those are for the courtroom) or 
proof that I know what I'm talking about (that would be tough to 
provide), I will be brief. You may count me among the Microsoft 
haters, and I am very pleased that the ``remedy'' of donating 
computers to schools was struck down. I like the idea of breaking 
the company into an applications and an operating system division.
    Thanks for listening,
    Greg



MTC-00014810

From: Kunal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
From: Kunal Arya ([email protected])
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    Please be informed that as a concerned citizen and hence 
concerned consumer of the United States, I would like to side with 
the Department of Justice against Microsoft Corporation. I have been 
in the information technologies field for over eleven years now and 
I have constantly had to submit to the very limitations on 
innovation that the company has set forth. In fact, throughout the 
company's history, it has inhibited technological advancement by 
controlling if not completely subjugating its competition. The 
company was formed by Mr. Bill Gates with the sole purpose of 
getting ahead not technologically, but fiscally. His goals have 
always been to destroy that which opposes him and in their stead 
dominate the computer market. I have seen competitive operating 
systems rise, and then fail, causing the collapse of companies as a 
direct result of Microsoft's monopoly. An example of this is Be 
Incorporated, a software company that marketed its BeOS 
(www.be.com). The company was recently forced to sell 
``substantially all of its intellectual property and other 
technology assets to Palm, Inc. and [cause] the dissolution of Be 
through the adoption of a plan of dissolution.'' (Source: http://
www.be.com/) There have been several other attempts to compete 
against Microsoft, but have failed and resulted in the dissolving of 
software corporations. Not only does this affect the technology 
industry, but the gross U.S. economy, as it removes the very 
competitive viability that defines capitalism. In the best interest 
of technological and economic growth, I strongly believe that the 
Department of Justice must curb the overpowering corporation and put 
an end to the monopolic practices and restricting technologies of 
Microsoft. As the world moves towards complete electronic commerce, 
and billions of dollars go into electronic transactions annually, we 
must ensure that this new marketplace remains corporately viable and 
economically in tact, open to all who want to expand and grow. 
Intervention is the safety net for innovation, and the US Government 
must protect the interests of its domestic industries in order to 
protect the interests of its consumers. Where do I want to today? 
Towards technological advancement and away from restricting 
corporations. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Kunal Arya
    [email protected]



MTC-00014811

From: David Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:27pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft Settlement
    I feel strongly that justice has been blinded by the color of 
commerce. Each day that passes, Microsoft works to strengthen it's 
monopolistic holds. Monopoly in itself is not illegal, but the 
practices Microsoft uses to accomplish it's goals are.
    This settlement is nothing but a slap in face of those who seek 
faith in the Department of Justice. Not only is this settlement a 
far cry from justice, but it furthers the monopoly of Microsoft.
    The citizens of the United States rely on the Department of 
Justice to mete out and preserve justice. Protect the naive and 
serve the principles of our country.
    Choose wisely and be diligent in your duties. You are the arm of 
the law.
    Sincerely,
    David



MTC-00014812

From: Jeremy Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:24pm
Subject: Opposition to proposed Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement to the Microsoft anti-
trust case is unacceptable. The settlement allows, and even 
encourages,

[[Page 25997]]

the advancement of the Microsoft monopoly by requiring them to 
supply hardware and software to schools. Microsoft does not 
traditionally carry a majority of the school market share, yet this 
move would allow them to increase their percentage of the 
educational market while also allowing them to use roughly 1/4 of 
the total `cost' of the settlement to pay for hardware while using 
the other 3/4 to pay themselves for the software they're providing, 
which is helping their overall market penetration. This is a 
settlement that was obviously proposed by a company who has no 
respect for the justice system and is counting on the system being 
too stupid to see through their plans. I hope that you all will do 
the right thing to encourage competition in the US marketplace. 
While a truly appropriate penalty will be hard to come to, one that 
rewards a defendant for wrongdoings of which they have been occused 
is clearly not in the interest of the American people.
    I can be reached at this email address (jgreen@dcom-
solutions.com), or at the following mailing address:
    Jeremy Green
    2201 Cottonwood Road
    Norman, OK 73071
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Green
    Jeremy Green
    CTO, Digital Commerce Solutions
    [email protected]
    http://www.dcom-solutions.com



MTC-00014813

From: Matt Squires
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi Renata,
    First, let me apologize in the event you have received another 
email from me with much of the same content. I recently had to 
reload my Windows due to chronic instability, and after the fresh 
install of Windows, the Netscape email software I go out of my way 
to download and install didn't work at all for some reason, and I 
had to find alternate software. With my new software, I still don't 
know my way around, and inadvertently hit the ``send'' button on a 
half-finished email. How embarrassing. Of course, since I'm writing 
to let you know about the damage Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly 
has caused the average user, this may be a telling example, and a 
taste of the average Windows experience. If you can, please remove 
the other, unfinished copy of my email from your records, as it is 
disjointed, garbled, and incomplete.
    I am a longtime Microsoft Windows user (not by choice), and I 
have been constantly disappointed over the years by the weak 
judgments handed out against Microsoft time after time by the legal 
system. I am even MORE disappointed by the fact that Microsoft has 
blatantly broken the already lenient terms set out by the government 
in the past, and has not been amply punished for their disobedience 
in any way whatsoever. Justice is more than a judgment on a piece of 
paper. The ``appearance'' of justice is also important, and that is 
one thing that is sorely lacking, especially in this most recent 
case. From what I've seen so far, Microsoft has won again, managing 
to get watered-down restrictions that won't slow their assault on 
the consumer and their competition in the least. Most people have 
told me not to even bother writing this letter to you, that the 
government is either:
    a) paid off by Microsoft, or
    b) under orders by George Bush to let Microsoft go free 
regardless of findings of fact This is the current public 
perception. Of course, I am hoping that neither of these foul 
possibilities is the case, and that there still is a chance to have 
a fair and reasonable set of terms and conditions set down in the 
Final Judgment.
    I ask that the Department of Justice strengthens the terms and 
conditions against Microsoft in the Final Judgment SEVERELY. I have 
read the information at the DoJ website concerning the Microsoft 
antitrust case, and I do not feel you have gone far enough to create 
a level playing field for all parties in the technology marketplace. 
Looking at the ideas put forth on http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/
f9500/9549.htm, I am afraid that these restrictions will not force 
Microsoft to:
    a) change their savage anticompetitive tactics,
    b) lose marketshare to superior, more deserving products, or c) 
understand that they are being punished for their behavior. They 
have made hundreds of billions of dollars directly because of their 
abuse of their monopoly, and this judgment should attempt to 
counterbalance that gain, since the power they have gained in the 
last 10 years of domination has guaranteed their stranglehold for 
the next 20. This judgment feels like it is a good step in 
``starting clean'', but it does not punish Microsoft for their past 
offences. They have still profited greatly from their crimes. And 
the inroads they have made into all walks of digital life are a 
great barrier to competition, even if a level playing field were 
miraculously established.
    I am a Canadian, so what I say may not hold as much sway with 
your department. But the results of this case will, and should, have 
worldwide ramifications. Canadians, Germans, Australians, Africans, 
Japanese people, and the rest of the world, are ALL feeling the 
negative effects of the Microsoft monopoly. I personally feel that I 
have suffered greatly because of Microsoft's business practices. As 
a user, I DIRECTLY relate their influence and predatory policy to 
the downfall of many technologies that were superior or more popular 
at the time of Microsoft's attacks on the competition. I, as a 
consumer, have suffered because of their abuse of their position. I 
have had my choice and options restricted by their behavior.
    I wish I could switch to another operating system to become 
Microsoft-free, but Microsoft has been giving out Microsoft Office 
CD's free with OEM computers long enough that they have pretty much 
killed Corel's Wordperfect Suite (among others), which used to have 
the 90% market share that Office now enjoys. And since I receive 
documents daily in the proprietary Word, Excel, and Powerpoint 
formats, I am forced to use Microsoft's product whether I like it or 
not. When a customer sends me a Purchase Order in Word XP format, I 
not only have to use Microsoft Word to open it, I have to buy the 
new Microsoft Word ``XP'' version, simply to open the file! And then 
when I send correspondence to another customer or supplier, they in 
turn have to buy Word XP in order to open my document. It's a 
vicious cycle, propagated by one thing-- Microsoft's closed, 
proprietary formats.
    I sincerely believe that there is no chance of Microsoft 
changing their ways unless the API's and proprietary document 
formats that they rely on to extend and maintain their unfair 
monopoly are opened up for non-Microsoft use, with a different 
license than the one offered on MSDN. If Microsoft determines the 
licensing (as is in your COMPETITIVE IMPACT STATEMENT, they 
determine how the information can be used. This doesn't help 
competition with Microsoft, it only helps Microsoft themselves. They 
may gain additional control through changing their licensing, and 
nobody can stop them, since we all rely on their droppings of 
information to survive in the software world. Programmers beg for 
table scraps of information from MS because we can't get it 
ourselves. Please promote freer licensing terms and more open 
spreading of the Microsoft specification sheets so the maximum 
number of programmers (from ALL Operating Systems) can become 
compatible with Microsoft's software, thus breaking the reliance on 
one company for so many electronic transmissions. Please consider 
forcing open the formats that Microsoft currently holds secret for a 
reason, or please consider having Microsoft use the most ``open'' 
format as their default instead of the most proprietary (ie RTF 
instead of DOC, etc.) There are perfectly good Open formats that can 
replace Microsoft's predatory and proprietary closed formats. Please 
give full communication with other vendor's software a chance by 
pushing for openness rather than secrecy. I would switch to another 
operating system if I wasn't forced by my customers and the people I 
deal with to transmit almost all data in specific, proprietary, 
closed Microsoft-only formats. Microsoft won by forcing their 
proprietary formats to be the default in the market, thus killing 
all non-MS software instantly; give competition an opportunity to 
``get in the game'' by forcing standardization and openness into the 
industry that made billions on secretive formats and purposeful 
exclusion of competitors. Computers and the Internet are tools of 
communication; Microsoft is the greatest hindrance to open 
communication in the world today. Please help build a strong and 
OPEN foundation for the world's communications infrastructure for 
the future.
    As long as they have the weight of their Windows monopoly to use 
as a club, the situation can only get worse. And if you don't act -
decisively- now, we may not get another chance. There will be a lot 
less evidence in the next Microsoft case, since they're shredding 
all emails now to prevent them being subpoena'd in the future. This 
is your one chance to right the wrongs of capitalism gone awry. If 
this case doesn't break Microsoft's legs, in five years from now, 
they will have trampled all their

[[Page 25998]]

competition to death. That sounds harsh, but only because Microsoft 
constantly claims they are the victim in this case. They're not. I 
am. The consumer. The programmer who would compete with Microsoft if 
there was any hope. If you want, I can name names of companies with 
superior products that are gone solely because of Microsoft's 
behavior and the results of their freedom to abuse their monopoly. 
Microsoft is so far ahead of the competition in this ``free market 
race'', that the competition Microsoft has already crippled and left 
crawling, like Apple, Corel, and Netscape, will only catch up if 
Microsoft's legs are broken in kind. If you have mercy, be certain 
Microsoft will not. Someone will be broken, you decide if it is 
Microsoft or another victim.
    In the news recently, Microsoft has bought much of Silicon 
Graphics'' Patent Portfolio, specifically the patents for OpenGL, 
which is in direct competition with Microsoft's own DirectX. By 
buying the patents of the dying competition (SGI also has no air 
supply), Microsoft can LEGALLY kill the 3D and gaming capabilities 
of ALL non-Microsoft Operating Systems. Apple will die. They based 
their new operating system on heavily on OpenGL. Linux will die. 
Like Apple, they don't have access to Microsoft's DirectX 
(obviously), and rely heavily on OpenGL to give their system 
functionality. Who will buy a computer if their kids can't play 
games on it, especially when Microsoft owns the Office genre and 
won't allow anyone else to communicate with their product? There's 
nothing else left. Microsoft owns it all. They have their fingers in 
with hardware producers now, who will have to exclude other 
operating systems from their designs in order to appease Microsoft. 
This isn't relevant to your case, but it is an example of the 
complete lack of respect Microsoft has for your verdict. They aren't 
worried in the least. And their business plans continue unaffected 
and unharmed. They will buy everything that is competition and bury 
it specifically to harm others.
    I hope that you will consider my points as you decide what to do 
to bring equity to the PC market.
    I'm sorry for being so wordy (and waxing poetic (badly) in a few 
places), but as a guy who works on computers 12-15 hours a day, 
Microsoft has honestly lowered my quality of life, and I'd hate to 
see them get out of yet another trial unscathed. Which, 
unfortunately, is what looks like is happening. Bill Gates admitted 
it when he said ``We haven't changed our business practices at 
all.''
    Think about it. This may be the last Microsoft case that will 
ever matter.
    Best Regards,
    Matthew Squires



MTC-00014814

From: Herbert Bruce Dimmitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Based on what I have been informed as to the features of the 
proposed settlement, it appears not to be monopolistic or anti-
competitive. Accordingly, I support adoption of the settlement and 
urge such action.
    Herbert Bruce Dimmitt
    9971 Bluejacket
    Overland Park, Kansas 66214-2314



MTC-00014815

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:02am
Subject: Settlement
    I believe the settlement of the antitrust case has been somewhat 
too harsh. Their anticompetive behaviour is not the case. People do 
have choices and we should not hurt companies for engaging in 
interest to further the industry.
    This industry moves far to fast for anyone to sit still in.
    Thank you for noting my coments on the issue.



MTC-00014816

From: Chris Chaves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Honorable Judge Kollar-Kotally,
    As an employee in the high tech industry, I am aware that 
Microsoft has used its operating system monopoly to dominate other 
software markets as well. In fact, every court has concluded that 
Microsoft violated antitrust laws in this manner.
    The proposed final judgment does nothing to prevent Microsoft 
from continuing in this behavior and would amount to a government 
mandate of the monopoly. Furthermore, the many billions of dollars 
Microsoft earned illegally from its antitrust violations go 
untouched. Virtually no penalty is applied.
    Due to these serious flaws in the proposed U.S. vs. Microsoft 
settlement, I ask you to reject it.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Chaves
    170 Tillman Ave.
    San Jose, Ca. 95126
    (408) 920-0365



MTC-00014817

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 12:31am
Subject: Microsoft
6950 Southwest 155th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33193
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr Ashcroft:
    The recent settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is in the best interest of the American public because it 
ends an extremely long and cumbersome litigation and it allows 
Microsoft to contine to innovate and grow.
    Under the terms of settlement, Microsoft will not be broken up, 
which is a good thing, but they will be forced to comply with a 
number of harsh stipulations. These concessions include disclosing 
internal interfaces and protocols as well as improve relations with 
computer makers and software developers. They have also agreed to 
form 2-person team to monitor Microsoft's compliance with agreement.
    These concessions should appease all opposition. I urge you to 
show the opposition that no more good can be done by continued 
litigation, and in fact, how it might even hurt the American economy 
and IT sector in particular.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    K.B. Tam



MTC-00014818

From: David T. Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:35am
Subject: The settlement is a joke, Bill Gates is a terrorist that 
doesn't use bullits,
    The settlement is a joke, Bill Gates is a terrorist that doesn't 
use bullits, his products are either stolen or inferior. The later 
of the two would be easily fixed by creating competition and not to 
mention the security holes that appear in all of their software sure 
woule get fixed much quicker if they had antoerh peice of software 
to fight with.



MTC-00014819

From: Richard Doll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:35am
Subject: MS settlement
Richard Doll
5935 W County Road 200S
Danville, IN 46122
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
January 19, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    Although I did not agree with this suit in the first place, it 
should be obvious to everyone by now it is time to move forward. The 
government should be extremely satisfied because the terms are 
extremely tough.
    For example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products. This concession represents a 
first for an antitrust settlement.
    As a member of the tech industry for many years, I know what it 
was like before and after Microsoft arrived on the scene. They have 
made so many jobs easier and workers more efficient because of their 
products. Microsoft has become the industry standard and ending this 
litigation will free them to continue their excellence.
    Sincerely
    Richard Doll



MTC-00014820

From: Rob Helmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hello,
    I would like to let you know that I oppose the Microsoft 
settlement.
    I've worked for numerous technology companies, both as a full-
time employee and as a contractor, and I've seen first-hand some of 
the abuses that Microsoft has caused the computer industry due to 
it's monopoly power.
    I've managed to make a living using non-Microsoft application 
software, and

[[Page 25999]]

interoperating with their applications or creating applications of 
my own as alternatives to their software.
    However, I fear that Microsoft will continue to use their 
desktop operating system and business application control to push 
into the server software market and eliminate applications that do 
not feed Microsoft's revenue stream in some way, just as they have 
done in the desktop and business software markets. I oppose the 
proposed settlement on the grounds that it does not do enough to 
restrict Microsoft from using their monopoly power to push out 
smaller business from any market that they turn their attention to.
    Thank you.
    Robert Helmer
    532 Liberty St.
    El Cerrito, CA 94530



MTC-00014821

From: Rob Preston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  12:54am
Subject: Microsoft Stetlement
    Microsoft Stetlement: Any published programs to date of any plan 
on how to compensate the millions of people openly ripped off has 
been a sick joke so far from Microsoft.
    Suitable Dream Plan: Recall any and all old Microsoft software 
disc. Microsoft to be forced to reimburst people 75% of the market 
price that was in place three months after the different programs 
came on the market. eg. Win 95 sold for $150.00, so refund would be 
$112.50 Please don't forget all of those that did not live or 
purchase their software in the US. In Canada we paid over $ 200.00 
for that same programe.



MTC-00014822

From: Nick Bellinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom in may concern,
    I am writing this email as in indicator of my dissatisfaction 
with the proposed remedy against the Microsoft Corporation as stated 
in the penalty phase of the antitrust trail. The main issue which is 
not being addressed in the proposed settlement is the restrictions 
that the Microsoft Corporation is STILL able to put on third party 
companies when it comes to creating an equal playing field for other 
third parties and other non-Windows Operating Systems to partipicate 
in the software ecomony. The Microsoft Corporation will still be 
able to apply predatory licencing practices of its software products 
making it impossible for third party software developers to enter 
into the Personal Computer Operating Systems, as well as non PC 
Operatings Systems and software market.
    One of the biggest problems that has not been addressed in the 
proposed settlement is the keeping of the Microsoft Corporation's 
Microsoft Office Suite files in a propritary format. This is a VERY 
dangerous road to continue to go down. This means that if buisnesses 
currently using Microsoft Office get sucked into the next upgrade 
cycle for Microsoft Office, there is NO way for interopterability of 
the Microsoft Office file formats between third party software 
vendors. This means that any public document written and transferred 
using Microsoft Office will require the recipiant of the document to 
be using Microsoft Office, or else they will not be able to open the 
file. This is exactly the type of predatory buisness practices that 
brought the antitrust suit against Microsoft, and this is one of the 
issues the proposed remedy does not address. The real solution is 
the open standardization of the Microsoft Office file formats so all 
comers can communicate with persons and buisnesses using Microsoft 
Office, without being forced to use Micrsoft Office or other 
Microsoft software themselves. Another more important remedy is the 
forcing of the Microsoft Corporation to license the Microsoft Office 
suite to third party software vendors so it can be ported to non-
Microsoft Operating Systems (ie: Linux and other Open Source 
Operating Systems) so that everyone is able to communicate using a 
standardized file format, and no users of non-Microsoft Operatings 
Systems and Microsoft Software are excluded from communicating with 
people using Microsoft software.
    The second of the largest problems which is not addressed in the 
proposed remedy is the open publication of the Microsoft 
Corporation's Microsoft Windows API or Application Programming 
Interface. The main issue here is that the idea of APIs are very 
narrow defined in the proposed remedy, and the Microsoft Corpation 
will continue to be able to change its APIs to suite its own 
predatory needs, and not the needs of its users, the needs of users 
of non-Microsoft operatings systems, and the needs of the public as 
a whole. In addition the proposed remedy makes no mention of the 
APIs outside of the Windows Operating System for Personal Computers. 
(ie: it does not address the Microsoft Corporations other Operating 
Systems such as Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC, or 
the X-Box Operating Systems). This sets a dangerous presidence as 
the Microsoft Corpation will be able to continue its predatory 
buisness pratices outside of the Personal Computer Operating Systems 
market, therefore making any preposed remedy against its Personal 
Computer Operating System competely useless, as Operating Systems 
and Software will not be used on machines resemebling Personal 
Computers in the next decade. The real and only possible remedy to 
this problem is the open publication and documenation of ALL 
Application Programming Interfaces for ALL of the Microsoft 
Operating Systems regardless of platform. This will allow third 
party software vendors to create programs to interopt with the 
Windows Operating Systems and its Programs and File Formats (as 
previously mentioned). As the proposed remedy currently stands, 
third party software vendors are prevented from making their 
products work with the Windows Operating Systems, and allows the 
Microsoft Corpoation to continue such predatory buisness pratices as 
making other Microsoft Software not function properly on non-
Microsoft Operating Systems, which completly disregards the purpose 
of the antitrust trial in the first place.
    The third of the largest problems which is not addressed in the 
proposed remedy is the terms the Microsoft Corporation is able 
license its software under. Under the proposed remedy the Microsoft 
Corpation will still be allowed to force large companies, state 
governments and univerties using its Enterprise Licensing Agreement 
for the number of computers which COULD run an Microsoft Operating 
System, even for computers running an NON-Micrsoft Operating System. 
This has already found to be an unlawful practice in the 1994 
concent decree, but the proposed remedy does nothing to address this 
problem. The forcing of OEMs (Orignal Equipment Manufactuers) by the 
Microsoft Corporation to only ship personal computers with the 
Windows Operating System, for fear of retaliation from the Microsoft 
Corpation. The perposed remedy does nothing to address this issue, 
and will allow the Microsoft Corpation to continue this practice 
which has already been found to be illegal. This issue holds true 
for NON Personal Computer Operating Systems as well. The perposed 
remedy does nothing to prevent the Microsoft Corporation from 
offering discounts of the Windows Opearting Systems to OEMs based on 
criteria such as sales of the Microsoft Office suite which allows 
the Microsoft Corporation to leverage its monopoly in the Personal 
Computer market to increase its market share in other areas. The 
only real solution to this problem is allowing ALL OEMs to ship non-
Micrsoft Operating Systems along with Microsoft Opeartings on the 
Personal Computer they will without fear of retaliation from the 
Microsoft Corporation. This will continue to be a huge issue as OEMs 
are now faced with such small profit margins (due to the current 
economic state), and are forced to pay the Microsoft Tax for all 
machines shipped, without the freedom to ship non-Microsoft 
Operating Systems. These are extremly important and underlying 
issues that are NOT addressed as the proposed remedy currenty 
stands. I hope for the sake of our nation's ecomony and future that 
these are addressed, or we will all find ourselves in the same 
positition a few years down the road, and things might not be so 
easy to fix then.
    Respectfully,
    Nicholas A. Bellinger
    Citizen of the United States of America
    Open Source Kernel Programmer and Security Reseacher
    39469 Gallaudet Dr. Apt #311
    Fremont, CA, 94538



MTC-00014823

From: collin christensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear judge,
    To tell you the truth i do not know to much about this whole 
microsoft settlement. I do know what will happen if microsoft takes 
over though, and that obviously would not be good for anyone. The 
effects will be devastating. They will take over all computer 
companies and it will just be microsoft. They will raise the price 
of everything and the effects of that are easy to figure out. Please 
do not let the PFJ be passed.

[[Page 26000]]

    Collin Christensen
    540-612-5835



MTC-00014824

From: John Spriggs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:11am
Subject: Competition At The Crossroads
The Honorable, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    Your Honor:
    Opportunities to ``right'' injustice within our increasingly 
competitive business culture, today, are a greater challenge, indeed 
more precious than ever and ones that we dare not let slip away.
    The precedent that Microsoft has levied so skillfully in 
decreasing and sometimes even eliminating the ability to compete 
within the software industry is one that we have an opportunity to 
change.
    This opportunity requires not only ongoing vigilance but firm 
action in correcting it now. We must not allow it to inadvertently 
and forever change the way Americans have traditionally and 
rightfully enjoyed business environments free from monopolistic 
harassment.
    Allowing Microsoft to continue it's present and purposeful 
course of monopolizing the software industry squeezes-off the 
lifeblood of our competitive freedoms and strikes at the very core 
of what makes, and has made, America markedly special among 
democratic nations.
    Your Honor, you have an historic opportunity in changing this 
course. Nothing less than a fair and just settlement in the 
Microsoft matter is the responsibility that has been entrusted into 
your hands
    As a Boeing 757 Pilot for America West Airlines, the needs of my 
employment and home-life require the use of both Microsoft and 
Macintosh operating system software. I see possibilities for a 
creative operating system environment that must not be snuffed out.
    I ask for your fairness, your wisdom and clear judgement to 
prevail in the very critical decisions you face.
    Sincerely,
    John M. Spriggs



MTC-00014825

From: Tony Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comments
    If the current proposed settlement in the antitrust case against 
Microsoft is implemented, it will shake my confidence in the system 
of justice of the United States of America. Microsoft was found to 
have broken the law, and that finding was affirmed unanimously on 
appeal. To allow them to keep the monopoly they have illegally 
maintained, extended, and abused is bad enough, but to let them 
continue the abusive practices is over the top.
    I have been an observer of Microsoft and user of their products 
over the past 16 years. A number of their products, both developed 
by Microsoft and by companies they have since purchased, are 
important to the functioning of my small business. They have done a 
lot of good for me and for users of computers generally. They built 
a monopoly in large part, fairly and legally. But that extra margin 
they they gained through nefarious means is the most damaging to 
consumers because it takes out the marginal players that can make 
the competitive market work.
    The simple fact is that this is a bad settlement. It is a 
betrayal of the users of software, the software industry, and the 
American People generally. Microsoft has demonstrated in the past, 
and in the very language of this settlement that they will abuse the 
trust that it is based on, and carry on in their illegal ways.
    Please do not let this case settle in this manor.
    Respectfully, Tony Evans
    Tony Evans
    Lorton Data Inc
    2125 E Hennepin Ave Ste 200
    Minneapolis MN 55413
    phn 612-362-0204
    fax 612-362-0299
    [email protected]
    www.lortondata.com
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014826

From: Dawenico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft
David F. Brown
11698 Eagle Bend Road
Sandy, UT 84094
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 205301
    Dear Mr. . Ashcroft:
    For over three years now, Microsoft has been undergoing 
antitrust hearings in the federal courts. For a while, it seemed 
that the only solution that the plaintiffs would accept was the 
dissolution of Microsoft. Thankfully, the courts determined that 
such actions were unnecessary, and appointed a mediator to oversee 
negotiations between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. It was 
only after six months of continuous negotiation that Microsoft and 
the Justice Department were able to settle on a broad range of terms 
and conditions that would not only prohibit further violations on 
the part of Microsoft, but also restore fair competition to the 
technology market.
    There is no reason to take additional federal action against the 
Microsoft Corporation. Were the settlement too lenient, as 
Microsoft's competitors claim, it would have done nothing to prevent 
future antitrust violations. But the settlement not only stops 
Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic behavior, it also extends 
these restrictive conditions to products and procedures not found to 
be unlawful by the Court of Appeals. Were the settlement any 
harsher, Microsoft would suffer severe losses that would be 
reflected in the economy and the technology industry. I believe this 
settlement is in the best interests not only of Microsoft and its 
competitors, but also of America as a whole. Microsoft has agreed to 
a wide range of restrictions and obligations, all of which will 
restore a competitive balance to the technology market. For example, 
Microsoft has agreed to refrain from entering into any contract that 
would require a third party to distribute or promote Microsoft 
technology either exclusively or at a fixed percentage. Additional 
litigation can only mean trouble for the IT industry and the 
American economy. I urge you and your office to support the 
settlement and move on.
    Sincerely,
    David F. Brown



MTC-00014827

From: Ben Schreiber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my oppinion in favor of the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. In my oppinion, the settlement is more 
than adequate to prevent any further anti-trust violations by 
Microsoft. Furthermore, I think that any of the alternatives that I 
have heard would serve simply to benefit competitors at Microsoft's 
expense, rather than benefit consumers in any way.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Benjamin Schreiber
    9431 126th Ave NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00014828

From: Ewdison Then
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Mam,
    I'm emailing you regarding my concern on Microsoft Corp case, 
I'm a student in Univ of North Texas and has been taking Microsoft 
way of business as my study case and has been folowing it's 
development since their flagship product release of Microsoft 
Windows 95 back when i was in Singapore. I feel Microsoft has abused 
it's position as a leading Operating System developer and 
manufacture. under any circumstances, Microsoft should be given a 
much heavier punishment than what it was sugessted by Microsoft Corp 
themselves. I understand from financial standpoint, Microsoft could 
contribute to the tech industry from this case, but would 
``Justice'' compromise with ``Money'' in this case?
    Judge Jackson ordered a breakup in Microsoft Divisions was a 
very good call, i'm not a biased Microsoft so call ``Hater'', i'm 
just a student that see from the stand point of a normal human being 
that could see a little of the Right prospective & the Wrong 
prospective and i believe more people feels the same way with the 
controversial product Microsoft Corp released recently, Windows XP.
    I hope DOJ would give the heaviest penalty to Microsoft on 
behalf of ``Justice'', after all, justice is what DOJ stands for.
    Have a good day
    Regards
    Ewdison Then
    Univ Of North Texas
    [email protected]



MTC-00014829

From: Chuck Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:43am

[[Page 26001]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software professional of 15 years, having written and 
supported applications for both Microsoft and competing products.
    Dan Kegel would attempt to have loopholes in the Proposed Final 
Judgment closed as he describes in the following link:
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Admirable as his intent is, I must respectfully disagree with 
Mr. Kegel that it is possible, much less practical, to close all of 
the loopholes Microsoft will inevitably find and employ no matter 
how careful and well-intentioned and regardless of the technical or 
legal expertise of the person(s) involved in the attempt. As an 
experienced repeat offender, Microsoft is too adept for any specific 
prohibitions to achieve much more than changes in labeling, or 
worse, cosmetic design changes to products that increase not only 
the development costs for Microsoft, but also for independent 
developers of software for Microsoft's Windows as well as those who 
develop compatible alternatives.
    Rather than attempt to restrict actions, I propose the following 
remedial actions be required:
    1. A public acknowledgment, specifically including:
    a. Microsoft's deliberately spreading false information 
regarding competing products.
    b. Microsoft's deliberately introducing changes in interfaces 
for the specific purpose of rendering competing products 
incompatible.
    c. Microsoft's effectively prohibiting resellers of Microsoft 
products from selling competing products.
    d. A reminder these actions can, and have, been pursued in civil 
courts --sometimes successfully.
    e. A general commonsense warning that reliance on any business-
critical product for which there is only one source can be 
detrimental to business continuity and profitability.
    Apology optional. This public acknowledgment should include 
national advertising in the trade magazines most likely to be read 
by those who authorize purchases of Microsoft products. It should 
also include national advertising on the major television networks 
during periods of relatively high viewership ensuring some large 
minimum number of people have viewed the acknowledgment.
    2. A concise mandatory warning label on every Microsoft product 
that can be read prior to purchase as well as after the product is 
installed--and made no less accessible or prominent than version and 
copyright information--preferably in the same manner.
    This would include a brief restatement of 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e. 
Brevity and simplicity of wording are essential. A lengthy epistle 
of legalese will be understood only by lawyers.
    3. A deadline for implementing 1 and 2 above.
    4. The above actions and quarterly reviews for compliance should 
continue for a period of five years starting from the beginning of 
compliance. Whomever is responsible for deciding compliance should 
solicit input from leaders in the industry including, but not 
limited to, competitors of Microsoft.
    No other measures. No fines other than court costs, enforcement 
costs and the expense of implementing the above. In my humble 
opinion, Microsoft's gain by deception has been, and will continue 
to be, only effective so long as the deception is not well known and 
well understood by business leaders and the general public.
    Also, it is my belief the people actually injured by Microsoft's 
deceptions are more likely to recover their losses in civil court 
via class action and individual lawsuits than by the changes likely 
to result from criminal prosecution. One objective of my 
recommendations is to lower the bar to civil remedies in the face of 
the considerable resources Microsoft can afford to unleash on the 
smallest, but well-founded, complaint.
    Another objective is to correct the commonly held, but false, 
assumption that Microsoft has risen to its leadership position 
entirely because of the quality of its products--the reason most 
commonly given for not considering alternatives to Microsoft in my 
fifteen years of experience in the industry. By warning Microsoft's 
potential clients as directly as practical, they are less likely to 
make ``no brainer'' decisions based on market share instead of 
merit.
    The last objective is ease of enforcement. The advertisements 
and warnings are present or not. They either acknowledge the 
required points in the language of a layperson or they do not. 
Contrast with a prohibition where the spirit, if not the letter, can 
be violated with impunity if enough cosmetics are applied--if the 
past is any indication.
    Thank-you for your consideration,
    Chuck Phillips



MTC-00014831

From: Jerry and Debbie Kotyuk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is past time to stop wasting our tax dollars (and time) in 
going after a company which has created many thousands of jobs both 
directly and indirectly. Microsoft, its employees, shareholders, and 
the American taxpayer have been severely injured by the years of 
anti-business prejudice of the Clinton administration.
    Also, this case was a deterrent to investors and entrepreneurs 
in the high-tech industry. Let consumers decide who wins or loses on 
Wall Street, rather than judges and bureaucrats. I strongly urge 
that the Microsoft settlement be recommended by the DOJ to the 
court.
    Jerry Kotyuk
    2300 Orleans Ave
    Marietta GA 30062-7214
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00014832

From: Vincent Monaco
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  10:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vincent Monaco
3050 Gerritsen Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11229-6031
January 22, 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.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and 
competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Vincent Monaco



MTC-00014833

From: Eric Olson
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  11:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eric Olson
6 Calle Maria
RSM, CA 92688
January 22, 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,
    Eric Olson

[[Page 26002]]



MTC-00014834

From: Joyce Boyd
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/23/02  12:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Boyd
6453 Mercer St
San Diego, CA 92122
January 23, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Boyd



MTC-00014835

From: Michael Stuhler
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  9:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Stuhler
8 Laurel Road
Lake Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
January 22, 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,
    Michael Stuhler



MTC-00014836

From: Rudy Petorelli
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rudy Petorelli
519-1 Joseph Ct
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 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,
    Rudy Petorelli



MTC-00014837

From: Marlene Petorelli
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  8:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marlene Petorelli
519-1 Joseph Ct
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 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,
    Marlene Petorelli



MTC-00014838

From: Suzanne Matthies
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/22/02  11:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Suzanne Matthies
5636 Washington Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516-1325
January 22, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 26003]]

    Suzanne Matthies



MTC-00014839

From: Richard Eizenhoefer
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02  11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Eizenhoefer
16611 NE 108th Place
Redmond, WA 98052-2707
January 22, 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. The sole motivation for the trial was to benefit 
Microsoft's competitors. Consumers and the United States economy 
have suffered irreparable harm, and still only Microsoft's 
competitors and greedy trial lawyers stand to benfit. I am a 
Microsoft employee, and more importantly a United States taxpayer.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, consumers--
rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once again pick the winners 
and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off the high-tech 
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 Eizenhoefer



MTC-00014840

From: David Kelly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a computer professional, I would just like to say that I am 
in favor of RedHat's proposal to give away it's Linux operating 
system for free to school districts and make Microsoft pay for the 
hardware. In addition, none of the hardware should be made by 
Microsoft (Microsoft mice/keyboards,etc).
    The RedHat proposal can be found on RedHat's website at: https:/
/www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press--usschools.html
    Regards,
    David



MTC-00014841

From: Kevin Hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:46am
Subject: MS Settlement
    I'm disappointed. Yes I live in Washington State, yes many of my 
friends and fellow engineers work for Microsoft. For their sake, 
Washington State sake, and USA economy sake, I should be happy that 
Bill and Co only got a mild wrist slapping, but I'm not.
    Microsoft's business practices are monopolistic, which is surely 
wrong from a good vs. evil perspective as they put little companies 
out of business.
    What really makes me angry about Microsoft and this ruling is 
that their monopolistic business practices stifles innovation in the 
technical arena which I am dependent on for a living. Microsoft is 
on the verge of taking over access to the web after shutting 
Netscape nearly out of business. Internet Explorer has been forced 
onto 90% of the PCs in the land. Now the web-site norm is to support 
InternetExplorer as a requirement. We're starting to see many web-
sites no longer work properly with the underdogs (Netscape, Mozilla, 
etc.). Just last week my employer installed a Microsoft Proxy 
Server, which by-the-way, runs just great with Explorer, but when 
Netscape is used to talk to the Web thru the MS-ProxyServer, you are 
required to login with a username a password after a 10minute 
timeout. Is Microsoft shutting out the competition 100%, No, but 
they are being just annoying enough to pursuade the common user to 
ditch all products other than theirs. Just like MS-Word before it, 
nobody loses their job making their web-site talk to 
InternetExplorer and not Konqueror or Mozilla or some other browser. 
InternetExplorer is not available for open-source OS's such as 
Linux. Its not even available for Sun Solaris. Thats a problem. Why 
is Microsoft giving away InternetExplorer for MS-Windows users but 
not providing InternetExplorer for alternate OS's, either in 
compiled binary or source code? Simple. This emerging strangle-hold 
on web-browsing is positioning alternate OS's out of business. Thats 
bad.
    Best Regards,
    Kevin M. Hubbard
    Senior Electronic Design Engineer.
    4034 251st PL SE
    Issaquah, Washington 98029
January 22,2002



MTC-00014842

From: Lars Gilstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I have been an electrical engineer for 7 years and have been 
following this antitrust case since 1995. I have purchased 
Microsofts new XP Windows because my Windows 98 became so unstable 
(truely a defective product). XP was $99, up from $89 for Windows 
ME, up from $79 for Windows 98. I can not believe the software that 
Microsoft has bundle with the operating system. Windows Media alone 
competes with dozens of other programs you should have to play for. 
Clearly Microsoft has not changed their ways. I urge the court 
impose strong sanction on Microsoft so that competition is restore 
in this vast market. Microsoft charges too much for their software, 
its products are defective, the singularity of operating systems 
with single office software and browers running on it poses a huge 
security risk for the Internet.
    Please do the right thing.
    Thank you for your time,
    Lars Gilstrom 667 College St
    Woodland, CA 95695



MTC-00014843

From: Bill Longabaugh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed settlement of United 
States v. Microsoft. In short, the current proposal is severely 
inadequate to the point of being a travesty. Despite the fact that 
this is probably the most significant, complex, and troubling 
antitrust case of our generation, the Justice Department has 
apparently now decided to abandon the entire effort, and rush out a 
fatally flawed settlement full of loopholes that Microsoft can use 
to avoid any meaningful restrictions on its illegal behavior.
    The current agreement is flawed, in that it just concentrates on 
trying to restrict behavior that Microsoft has used in the past to 
maintain its current monopoly status. However, it even fails to 
achieve this inadequate goal.
    For example, Sections III.D and III.E state that Microsoft must 
document its APIs ``... for the sole purpose of interoperating with 
a Windows Operating System Product.'' This completely ignores the 
usefulness of having APIs documented to allow Windows applications, 
such as Office, interoperate with a non-Microsoft operating system, 
such as GNU/Linux. Also, according to Section III.J.1, Microsoft is 
allowed to not disclose information if it deems that it would 
``compromise ... security''. It is generally recognized within the 
computing security community that truly secure protocols and 
algorithms can be publicly distributed and discussed without 
compromising security. In fact, the public disclosure of this 
information is a way to allow consumers to determine for themselves 
if a supposedly secure implementation is truly secure. Thus, this 
provision merely provides Microsoft with just another loophole that 
they can use to unilaterally refuse to disclose information about 
the Windows operating system to independent developers.
    Section III.J.2 also contains an egregious error. Since 
Microsoft has utterly destroyed viable commercial competition, 
volunteer efforts such as GNU/Linux, the Samba project, and WINE 
have become the best chance at providing consumer choice in PC 
software. However, the proposed agreement allows Microsoft to decide 
who it will share its API disclosures with. Specifically, Section 
III.J.2 allows Microsoft to decline to provide information to any 
party that it decides fails to meet ... reasonable, objective 
standards established by Microsoft for certifying the

[[Page 26004]]

authenticity and viability of its business''. Given this provision, 
Microsoft could easily refuse to share crucial API information to 
private parties who are trying to build open-source alternatives to 
Microsoft software.
    It is also disturbing that after years of legal proceedings, the 
Justice Department has allowed Microsoft to continue to state in 
Section VI.U that ``... the software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its 
sole discretion.'' I feel that this belief, which Microsoft 
adamantly refuses to modify, lies at the core of Microsoft's illegal 
behavior.
    Finally, there is no effective enforcement mechanism. In this 
regard, I quote Professor Lawrence Lessig, who has stated: ``... the 
settlement is fatally flawed. There is no effective enforcement 
mechanism to assure that Microsoft lives up to the terms of the 
decree. The ``technical committee'' does not have the power to 
interpret the decree. The only entity that can interpret the decree 
is a federal court.'' (Quoted from: http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=01/12/21/155221)
    So, the current proposed settlement, which concentrates on past 
behaviors, is fatally flawed. Any settlement that has any hope of 
correcting the imbalance in the market needs to go much further. As 
a minimum:
    1) The settlement should require Microsoft to release Windows 
API and networking protocol information freely and without 
limitations. All software developers, be they private, commercial, 
or in the government, should be able to obtain this information. 
They should be able to use this information to write software that 
interoperates with Microsoft operating systems, as well as to 
develop software that allows Microsoft applications to operate with 
non-Microsoft operating systems. This would permit the volunteer 
teams working on GNU/Linux, Samba, and WINE to continue their 
crucial efforts to provide alternatives to Microsoft monopoly 
products.
    2) In a similar fashion, file formats for the Microsoft Office 
suite of applications need to be made freely available, without 
limitations, to allow developers to create other products that 
interoperate with these applications. MS should be required to 
support those teams trying to to insure interoperability.
    3) Any Microsoft products that are available on new computers 
must be offered as extra-cost options on those computers, so that 
consumers have an option of purchasing computer hardware without an 
operating system. This allows users of free operating systems such 
as GNU/Linux to avoid having to buy products they do not want or 
use.
    4) The settlement should also provide for an enforcement 
mechanism with real teeth, so that issues arising over the agreement 
can be settled without having to resort to the federal courts.
    5) There should be a considerable fine imposed on the company 
for its illegal behavior.
    6) Innovative structural remedies, such as requiring Microsoft 
to sell off their developer tools business and/or their browser 
business, should not be off the table. These approaches could 
significantly help to change the currently unhealthy dynamics in the 
PC software industry.
    In summary, Microsoft has had far too much influence on crafting 
this settlement. The company has shown that it will take maximum 
advantage of loopholes in any agreements it makes; the 1994 consent 
decree was a wretched failure at restricting their illegal behavior. 
Since then, the federal courts have ruled that Microsoft has indeed 
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, and yet the Justice Department 
has again allowed Microsoft great leeway in crafting a settlement. I 
would argue that any settlement that Microsoft can freely agree to 
does not go far enough; the Justice Department should use the 
leverage it has gained to see that the courts impose an agreement on 
the company that leaves Microsoft without any wiggle room that 
allows it to continue its illegal behavior.
    The bottom line is this: if this settlement is truly adequate, 
why have half of the plaintiffs in this antitrust action refused to 
sign on, and instead have decided to continue pursuing the case? The 
answer is simply that this poor excuse for a settlement is utterly 
and completely inadequate.
    Sincerely,
    William J.R. Longabaugh
    4047 51st Ave SW
    Seattle WA 98116-3616



MTC-00014844

From: Andrew Silvis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:55am
    Your honor,
    I'm writing to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement in 
the U.S. vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft has benefitted from violating 
anti-trust laws, and this settlement would only increase the 
company's presence in the market. There is no guarantee that 
Microsoft, a repeat offender of anti-trust laws as determined by 
every court, won't continue its anti-competitive behavior. We the 
consumers pay the price.
    Please strike down the proposed final judgment which does 
nothing to punish Microsoft.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Silvis
    PO Box 1740
    Hawalli, Kuwait 32018



MTC-00014845

From: Andreas Mohr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: deep concerns
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    I'm deeply concerned about the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
just read that despite its numerous legal and syntactic flaws which 
allow Microsoft too much freedom in interpreting its rules, it's 
about to get passed.
    It's been clear almost from the beginning to many people that 
the Settlement as proposed by Microsoft is way too weak. And now 
people tell me that it's probably going to be passed.
    Once this happens, then I'll know what to really think of the 
American ``Justice'' system.
    I'd like you to think again before deciding on this issue.
    Yours sincerely,
    Andreas Mohr, Open Source programmer



MTC-00014846

From: Stephen R. Savitzky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer scientist with thirty years'' experience in 
computer- related industries, I wish to submit my comments under the 
Tunney Act on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    I agree completely with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's 
analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), 
namely:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    The PFJ can be summarized briefly as saying that Microsoft 
agrees to publish some of its prices and license a few of its API's 
and protocols (possibly at a high price and for strictly limited 
purposes) while continuing nearly all of its current exclusionary 
practices and enjoying carte blanche to extend its monopoly into 
tablet PC's, palmtops, set-top boxes, game consoles, and in fact 
into every kind of product except desktop PC's, where it already 
enjoys a monopoly which the PFJ does little to address.
    I would add that Microsoft's biggest competitor is the free, 
community- developed operating system GNU/Linux, and that many 
provisions of the PFJ (for example, section I, which provides for 
the payment of royalties for ``any intellectual property rights 
owned or licensable by Microsoft that are required to exercise any 
of the options or alternatives expressly provided to them under this 
Final Judgment'') seem expressly designed to prevent the community 
of individual developers that constitutes Microsoft's only effective 
competitor from deriving any benefit or protection under the PFJ. 
Moreover, I.3. explicitly allows Microsoft to refuse to license its 
technology for use in open-source software--again its only effective 
competition.
    Worse, Sections D and E include the phrase ``for the sole 
purpose of interoperability with a Windows Operating System 
Product'', thus explicitly allowing--indeed, encouraging--Microsoft 
to prohibit the development of a competing operating system that 
runs Microsoft applications.
    Similarly, more PC's are manufactured and sold by small local 
and regional ``white box'' dealers than by large OEMs; these small 
entities similarly derive no benefit from the PFJ.
    Then, too, PC's can be expected to be a rapidly-diminishing 
portion of Microsoft's operating system market: Microsoft operating

[[Page 26005]]

systems are built into pocket-sized organizers (the Pocket PC), game 
consoles (the Xbox), set-top boxes (WebTV), and new products such as 
``tablet'' computers and ``web pads'', not to mention servers. The 
PFJ in its current form explicitly excludes all of these non-PC 
devices from its proposed remedies.
    Finally, a large part of Microsoft's monopoly power is derived 
from its ability to change file formats and protocols at will. This 
makes it practically impossible to write software that interoperates 
with Microsoft applications and operating systems, and allows 
Microsoft to force users to upgrade continuously in order to 
maintain access to their own data.
    Considering that Microsoft has already been convicted of abusing 
its monopoly power, and that this conviction has been upheld on 
appeal, it hardly seems necessary to ask whether it is in the public 
interest to allow Microsoft to dictate the terms of its own 
``penalty'' in a manner almost completely favorable to itself. 
However, the Tunney Act asks this question, and it seems safe to 
answer resoundingly in the negative. I've been struggling to find a 
pithy analogy for this situation, but I can't. It's almost like the 
old joke in which a convicted murderer is given his choice of 
execution methods and chooses to die of old age.
    But this is monopoly, not murder, and it isn't funny.
    What can be done to fix the PFJ? A few obvious improvements come 
immediately to mind. These can be briefly summarized as:
    o require Microsoft to publish all of its prices.
    o require Microsoft to publish all of its API's, protocols, and 
file formats, and allow them to be used for any purpose including 
the development of free, competing operating systems.
    o extend these provisions to all Microsoft operating system 
products, not just those that run on personal computers.
    In particular,
    1. Extend the ``Covered OEMs'' of section B to include ALL 
LICENSEES. Microsoft should publish its prices, period.
    2. In section D, replace ``. . .  disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, 
ICPs, and OEMs, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product,. . . '' with the phrase ``. . .  
disclose to the public, for any purpose, . . . '', hence making all 
operating system API's freely available and allowing competing 
operating systems to run applications originally designed to run on 
Microsoft operating systems.
    3. In section E, replace ``make available for use by third 
parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms 
(consistent with Section III.I)'' with ``make available to the 
public specifications for. . . '' and hence require all 
communication protocols to be open. It is well known in the computer 
security community that any communication protocol which is not open 
to public scrutiny represents a grave risk to the public, because 
anyone who discovers a hidden flaw can exploit it for a long time 
before the flaw becomes known to others.
    4. Insert a section similar to section E which replaces 
communications protocols used to interoperate with a Microsoft 
server operating system with file formats required to interoperate 
with Microsoft applications.
    5. Modify section I.1. to require Microsoft to waive license 
fees for use in software which is freely given away. Modify section 
I.3. to allow licensees to freely distribute source code.
    6. In VI section O, replace ``Personal Computers'' with 
``Computers''.
    7. Replace VI section Q with a suitable definition of 
``Computer'' as any computing device that is capable of running a 
Microsoft Operating System Product. In any case, it must include 
both servers and such consumer products as tablet computerss, pocket 
PC's, and game controllers.
    8. In VI section U, define ``Microsoft Operating System 
Product'' as any Operating System sold by Microsoft.
    I believe that these suggested changes are the minimum required 
to prevent Microsoft from not only perpetuating its current monopoly 
on the personal computer, but extending it into other, and indeed 
larger, areas.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Robert Savitzky
    Contact information:
    Home: 343 Leigh Ave
    San Jose, CA 95128
    Phone: 408-2994-6492
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Work: Chief Software Scientist
    Ricoh Innovations, Inc.
    2882 Sand Hill Road, Suite 115
    Menlo Park, CA 94025
    Phone: 650-496-5710
    E-mail: [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014847

From: Ed Howland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    Dear Sirs,
    I'd like to voice my opinion on the proposed Microsoft Antitrust 
settlement as allowed under the Tunney Act.
    My main objection to the settlement is that there doesn't seem 
to be any penalty to Microsoft. As a remedy, it seems worse than the 
original harm, especially in certain areas dealing with Independant 
Software Vendors (ISVs) I have been a software engieer with 18 years 
writing software for Unix and Microsft OSes. It has been my 
experience that when using Microsoft's products from version to 
version, new features for ISV developers are seemingly obsfucated 
and you need to pay more money to get the fix or documentation. I 
can relate many horror stories about missed project dates due in 
main to some undocumented ``feature'' (read: bug) in a new Windows 
API.
    Because of the narrow wording of the agreement with regard to 
APIs in particular, it is pretty easy for Microsoft to publicaly say 
they are in compliance with the agreement. However, with just a 
renamed (not a new release) version they can return to their anti-
competitive ways. This, in my opionion, does little to reduce my 
barrier to entry. Indeed, after this goes into effect, I predict 
Microsoft will release a new application that competes with mine and 
works much better with XP than mine does.
    Section III.H.3 and Section III.D fail to help ISVs like me to 
develop and deliver competing middleware products because the 
required technical documentation might not be delivered on time to 
be included in the next release of the OS. Again, Microsoft's own 
middleware developers have the advantage of me with advance 
knowledge and if I'm not very very very good, I will miss the boat 
and likely the small market window as well.
    Because of the hardships placed on me as an independant 
developer, I have switched completely from Microsoft products to 
Java and the Linux OS platform. I might like to do both in the 
future, if as Mr. Ashcroft states, theses barriers to entry will be 
removed by the settlement. I actually think they will be higher in 
the end, because I might be led down the primrose path to find that 
I have to work under even worse conditions to perform the same level 
I used to.
    If that were not bad enough, Microsoft seems to be attacking my 
new source of income by going after Open Source applications and 
operating systems. This is my biggest grievance for the future. As 
Dan Kegel says in his paper on the proposed settlement, Microsoft 
increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive 
license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails 
to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe> (1)
    There are many other points of contention I find in the PFJ, but 
these are the most relevant to me and my source of income. I think 
that the point of an anti-trust settlement should be to redress 
damages done to to the plaintiffs not to reward the defendant. This 
settlement seems to say Microsoft will not be allowed to harm me in 
the future, but clearly I beleive I will be worse off no matter 
which way I turn. Windows application development will be next to 
impossible under the restrictions, and Open Source work will be 
prohibited. It seems my only choice as a software engineer in the 
coming years will be to submit my resume to Microsoft and hope they 
hire me, or to flip burgers.
    Thank you for taking the time to read my letter and hearing my 
concerns over this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Howland
    St. Louis, Mo
    (1) http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html



MTC-00014848

From: Charles S. Pecoraro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I'm not a CEO or anything like that but I am a college student 
who believes in a free market but not at the cost of a competitive 
one where the consumer, who drives the market, becomes the victim of 
an unregulated

[[Page 26006]]

stranglehold upon it. It is vital that competition remains vigerous 
to porduce the best possible product a the lowest possible price. We 
can not afford to have Microsoft, which I have nothing against 
personally, control a market which plays such a large part in the 
everyday functions of business around the globe. thank you for your 
time.
    Charles S. Pecoraro
    1247 w. 30th st. apt 110
    Los Angeles, Ca 90007 CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014849

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    I am writing to strongly protest the Proposed Final Judgement in 
the Microsoft antitrust suit. As written, it fails to prohibit 
significantly anti-competitive practices of which Microsoft has been 
proven guilty.
    As an example of how I, as a consumer, am directly harmed by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, and how these practices are 
not restrained by the Proposed Final Judgement, I offer the 
following fact: I do not use Windows. I choose, instead, to use a 
competing operating system, Linux, that also uses the popular x86 
hardware platform on which Microsoft's Windows operating system was 
found to have a monopoly. I have no interest in purchasing a 
computer with Windows installed; instead, I would rather purchase a 
computer with Linux, and only Linux, installed. I do not want to pay 
for what I will not use. And yet, according to the Proposed Final 
Judgement, if the OEM with whom I wish to do business tries to sell 
me such a computer, Microsoft is fully entitled to retaliate against 
that OEM. Section III.A.2 prohibits retaliation against an OEM for 
selling computers that (a) have both Windows and another OS 
installed, or (b) ``will boot with more than one Operating System'', 
but does not prohibit retaliation for selling a computer that sells 
a computer with a single, non-Windows OS installed. Microsoft can 
raise the prices on every copy of Windows the OEM does install, 
until the OEM is effectively paying the costs of installing Windows 
on every machine they sell, whether or not Windows is actually 
installed! (In effect, this grants Microsoft permission to resume 
selling the per-processor licenses that were expressly prohibited by 
the 1994 consent decree in Microsoft's earlier antitrust case.) Far 
from inhibiting Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position, the 
Proposed Final Judgement allows Microsoft to punish OEMs that 
attempt to provide their customers a choice between Windows and its 
competitors! Even if an OEM should choose for any reason choose to 
still offer both Windows computers and non-Windows computers, they 
would have a financial penalty imposed upon them which they would 
have no choice but to pass on to the consumer.
    With loopholes of this magnitude in the proposed settlement, I 
do not feel that it adequately represents my interests as a consumer 
or encourages free market competition.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph Crowley III
    1126 East Street
    Dedham, MA 02026



MTC-00014850

From: Ty Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust
    Microsoft cannot be allowed to continually stifle competition in 
the computer arena. They have already done so without much effort 
simply by releasing new applications as the default in their 
operating system; thus, squelching the competition to a meager 
level.
    The most notable example of this is Netscape. They continue to 
destroy creative and exciting enterprises by releasing competing 
products for free, and as the default with their Windows operating 
system brand name. Examples of this are Windows Media Player vs Real 
Networks, or MSN Instant Messenger vs AOL's AIM or AOL's ICQ. Not to 
mention the obvious and present security concerns regarding Passport 
and it's licensing agreement.
    I've done my best to avoid their monopolistic practices as best 
I can, I use Linux. I still find myself frustrated with the amount 
of effort they have put into making life in the IT profession a 
living nightmare, especially for a Network Admin.
    I fear the day they will dominate web services with their .NET 
strategy, for that will be the end of all competition if adopted.
    Tyler Norton
    24323 NE 10th
    Sammamish, WA 98074
    Sincere Regards, --
    Ty Norton  [email protected]
    UNIX Network Consultant



MTC-00014851

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Dear Judge,
    I feel we live in a nation that has suceeded by entrepreneurs 
and capitalists who make good on their opportunties and succeed in 
whatever endeavors they pursue. I ask that you allow Microsoft to 
continue with their monopoly and not get in the way of capitalism 
itself. Thank you for your consideration.
    T. Souza
    (213) 748-7866
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014852

From: Rick Stockton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Due to the fact that the United States Department Of Justice 
(DOJ) has published an incorrect address for E-Mail comments at 
least once, I request that the DOJ send one (or more) return E-Mail 
replies to me containing (1) confirmation that my E-Mail has been 
properly received; (2) the responses to all of my comments as 
required by the Tunney Act; and (3) the date on which my comments 
and their responses have been published in the Federal Register.
    Thank you.
    Richard S Stockton, U.S. Citizen
    1537 Berne Rd NE
    Fridley, FIN 55421
    EMail: [email protected]
    I object to numerous inadequacies in the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement, which, among other failures, provides insufficient relief 
for injuries suffered by computer buyers and the general public at 
the hands of Microsoft. As per the Tunney Act, I am providing 
comments regarding provisions which are present in the document, but 
are either (a) too unclear; (b) too incomplete; (c) riddled with 
``loopholes'' to benefit the guilty defendant (at the expense of the 
already victimized Plaintiffs and the consumers they represent); or 
(d) inadequate from a procedural perspective. These provisions are 
therefore inadequate to prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly 
power again in the future, and/or inadequate to provide a sufficient 
remedy for Microsoft's past illegal behavior. My comments also deal 
with inadequacies of omission (areas in which additional provisions 
are needed, but the Revised Proposed Final Judgement provides 
nothing).
    I hope that my comments will assist the DOJ in arriving at a 
proposal which is more fair, effective and reasonable. I would like 
your to pay particular note to my Third Objection, which provides a 
very clear and reasonable argument for requiring Microsoft to offer 
versions of Windows Operating Systems without unwanted ``Microsoft 
Middleware'', at reduced prices, to both OEMs and Retail Customers. 
Retail customers have been victimized with enormously inflated costs 
via Microsoft's past abuses, but the current Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement provides no remedy for them.
    If I may answer any questions regarding these comments, please 
feel free to contact me via EMail.
    First Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding ``Prohibited 
Conduct'' Part `A':
    The second of 3 numbered items prohibits Microsoft from 
retaliating against an OEM for ``shipping a Personal Computer that 
(a) includes both a Windows Operating System Product and a non-
Microsoft Operating System, or (b) will boot with more than one 
Operating System;'' This provision is worded to ALLOW Microsoft 
retaliation against any OEM who ships Personal Computers with (c) a 
single non-Microsoft Operating System; or (d) no OEM-installed 
Operating System at all. In order to be protected from retaliation, 
the OEM is therefore required to load up all such Personal Computers 
with multiple bootable Operating Systems. More disk space is 
consumed, user documentation is made more complex; support costs are 
raised; and systems design/integration work by the OEM is vastly 
increased.
    The OEM and their customers are both forced to pay for the 
installation of at least one, and perhaps two, undesired Operating 
Systems in every Personal Computer. Thus, this provision serves to 
PROTECT Microsoft's ill-gotten Operating System monopoly by imposing 
large, unfair, and totally unwanted costs on the OEMs (and 
purchasers) of non-Windows computers. In order to provide adequate 
remedial value to victimized OEMs,

[[Page 26007]]

this provision needs to be rewritten to include computers in my 
categories (c) and (d) (as described in the preceding paragraph).
    Second Objection from Richard Stockton, also regarding 
``Prohibited Conduct'' Part `A': With regard to the requirement for 
Microsoft providing written notice of reasons and 30 days'' notice 
before terminating a Covered OEM's license, the Proposed Judgement 
says: ``Not withstanding the foregoing, Microsoft shall have no 
obligation to provide such a termination notice and opportunity to 
cure to any Covered OEM that has received two or more such notices 
during the term of its Windows Operating System Product license.''
    After Microsoft has issued two termination notices, it appears 
that a third notice is not required (even if the reasons provided in 
the first two notices were invalid, unfair, or ``cured''). The 
definition of a ``Covered OEM'' also includes only the 20 largest 
distributors of Windows Operating System licenses in the entire 
world. These are large firms, which are likely to need much more 
than 30 days notice to revise their product lines or distribution 
channel relationships. This sentence should be removed (Microsoft 
should be required to give reasons and reasonable notice for such 
terminations an unlimited number of times), and the minimum length 
of time from receipt of the notice of reasons until termination of 
the agreement should not be less than 90 days.
    Third Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding many sections 
within ``Prohibited Conduct') Although the Proposed Final Judgement 
clearly allows OEM's and End Users to remove and/or replace 
Microsoft ``Middleware'' Products, nowhere does it require Microsoft 
to offer a `stripped-down' versions of Windows Operating Systems at 
reduced prices. The `Competitive Impact Statement' states that the 
DOJ seriously considered a requirement that Microsoft ``manufacture 
and distribute the Windows Operating System without any Microsoft 
Middleware or corresponding functionality included'', but provides 
no reason why such a requirement was not included.
    Therefore, Windows Operating Systems customers (OEM and retail) 
will be forced to continue subsidizing the Microsoft tactic of 
destroying competition with Windows-Subsidized ``free'' Middleware 
Products, such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. 
Microsoft has claimed that the dollar value of Internet Explorer 
source code is in the billions. What ISV can possibly develop a 
competitive product when Microsoft remains allowed to ``cut of their 
air supply'' by shipping ``free'' Middleware within overpriced 
Windows Operating Systems? And, why would an OEM go the trouble and 
expense of working with an ISV to distribute a competitive 
``Middleware Product'' while the Microsoft Product remains 
effectively ``free''? The Proposed Final Judgement should be changed 
to specify a reduced price schedule, to benefit all OEMs and Retail 
customers, for alternate versions of the Windows Operating System 
which exclude undesired Microsoft ``Middleware'' Product(s). The 
current Revised Proposed Final Judgement fails miserably in 
addressing Microsoft's illegal use of the Operating System monopoly 
to subsidize the destruction of competitors in Application 
Middleware markets by ``cutting off their air supply''
    Fourth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding failure to 
require documentation of file formats.
    The Proposed Final Judgement presents the disclosure of ``APIs'' 
and ``layers of Communications Protocols'' as remedial measures, but 
fails to include any requirement to document file formats. Any ISV 
which might attempt to compete in the office document generation 
marketplace (i.e., word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) must be able 
to import and export ``Microsoft office'' files. The Court found 
that Microsoft established and maintained a monopoly in this 
Application Software market by utilizing its Operating System 
monopoly to destroy competition from Lotus SmartSuite. Many experts 
within the computer industry consider Microsoft's ill-gotten Office 
Suite monopoly to be more dominant than its Operating System 
monopoly. To provide a remedy for this past abuse, and assist in 
reconstruction of a competitive marketplace, the content formatting 
specifications of all such data files must be made available to any 
ISV who has an interest in developing Software which reads or writes 
``Microsoft office'' data files, ``Windows Media Player'' data 
files, and any other data files utilized by future releases of 
Microsoft ``Middleware'' and ``Office'' Products.
    Fifth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the presence of 
a ``loophole'' allowing Microsoft to withhold vital APIs, 
documentation, and Communications Protocols. The paragraph J-1 
within section III provides loopholes which make all preceding and 
following ``requirements'' to release APIs and related documentation 
almost totally ineffective. Nearly every ``Middleware'' 
Communications Protocol eyecutes within a framework of some 
authentication and/or authorization criteria, and many Windows APIs 
implement security features. For example, Windows XP invites its 
installers to register via Passport. An argument can be made that 
Passport constitutes a ``particular installation or group of 
installations'', and therefore is excluded. The `Competitive Impact 
Statement' claims that ``this is a narrow exception, limited to 
specific end-user implementations'' but this text does not appear in 
the the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
    The clause (a) of this sentence/paragraph provides a loophole, 
in advance, preventing third party access to vast quantities of 
information which must be available in order to remedy past illegal 
behavior of the defendant. The entire clause should be removed and 
replaced by a section which allows Microsoft to request a waiver 
from the TC for each specific area of ``sensitive'' security 
information which Microsoft desires to conceal. Unless granted a 
waiver from the TC, Microsoft should be required to release all 
requested information on a timely basis unless directed not to do so 
by a government agency as per clause (b).
    Sixth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the presence of 
two ``loopholes'' allowing Microsoft to condition the licenses of 
APIs, documentation, and Communications Protocols with unreasonable 
terms.
    The paragraph J-2 within section III places expensive, 
burdensome, and inappropriate requirements on the Software 
Development entities for whom the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
supposedly attempts to provided remedial relief from past Microsoft 
abuses. As with my Fifth Objection, the `Competitive Impact 
Statement', makes a claim that these burdens are limited to only 
``the narrowest possible scope''. But nearly every ``Middleware'' 
Communications Protocol executes within a framework of some 
authentication and/or authorization criteria, and no such 
``narrowing'' text is present in the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement.
    Background for Loophole #1: The Findings and evidence in the 
case, as well as other widely distributed Microsoft documents, 
indicate that Microsoft considers GNU-Linux to be a serious threat 
(and perhaps the only remaining viable threat) to its Operating 
System monopoly. Linux is an Open-Source software project, not 
controlled by any business entity. Similarly, many of the viable 
competitors to Internet Explorer depend on the Open-Source Mozilla 
project for some (and in the specific case of Netscape, nearly all) 
of the code within their Products.
    Loophole #1: In spite of this well-understood situation, clause 
(c) of the Revised Proposed Final Judgement requires such entities 
to meet ``. . . reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business''. Since these entities are NOT businesses, it seems very 
unlikely that they would meet ``objective standards established by 
Microsoft''. In addition, it is unsound to allow the GUILTY 
DEFENDANT to establishes the standards by which the already 
victimized plaintiffs are ``judged'' to qualify for the remedy. This 
clause should be replace by a clause which allows Microsoft to 
request that the TC disqualify a specific Software Development 
entity from receiving the information for specific reasons provided 
by Microsoft.
    Loophole #2: An even more serious problem exists within clause 
(d), requiring that the Software Development entity submits its 
Software Programs to a Microsoft-approved third party test 
organization ``to test for and ensure verification with Microsoft 
specifications of use of the API or interface. . . ''. As a former 
professional Software Test Analyst, I can assure you that the amount 
of testing which can be created to fully verify the functionality of 
a complex API is nearly unlimited. In the Software business, 
effective test planning and execution must strike a balance between 
finding significant errors and completing the testing at within 
reasonable constraints of time and cost. (A vast majority of leading 
Professors of Computer Science throughout the World would agree with 
these statements). Microsoft is given a ``loophole'' to inflict 
enormous financial costs (and perhaps delays in Software Release) on 
competing Software Development entities by requiring an amount of 
testing which is apparently defined by a Microsoft-approved third 
party. It appears that such a third party

[[Page 26008]]

is invited to create an arbitrarily comprehensive and lengthy test 
plan per Microsoft specifications, but that all of resulting test 
costs are borne by the ISV. This clause should be removed and 
replaced by clause which allows Microsoft to perform such testing at 
its own expense (not the ISV's).
    Seventh Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding Section 
IV.D.9.
    The scope of this confidentiality agreement appears to be in 
conflict with IV.D.4.a: Since the latter provision invites third 
parties to submit complaints concerning Microsoft's compliance, this 
provision should be changed to allow for the TC to respond to the 
complaining third party.
    Eighth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding provisions in 
Section IV.D.4 (``Submissions to the TC'').
    Lettered item ``c'' fails to provide any mechanism for assuring 
that the TC's ``proposal for cure'' of a meritorious complaint is 
fully (or even partly) followed by Microsoft. This provision should 
be expanded to (1) require timely and complete compliance by 
Microsoft with any ``proposal for cure'' proposed by the TC; and (2) 
to provide for appropriate punishment, via Court Action, of 
Microsoft Corporation and/or its Officers for failure to comply with 
any such ``proposal for cure''. This leads to my objection to the 
provision in lettered item ``d''. The Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement, after requiring the TC to investigate, analyze, and 
specify proposals to cure meritorious complaints, specifies that no 
``work product'' may be admitted in any enforcement proceeding 
before the Court. The TC is required by other Sections to carefully 
investigate, assess, and resolve any complaints regarding Microsoft 
behavior. But, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement proposes to 
remove the possibility of any Court hearing or seeing large amounts 
of relevant and significant evidence regarding future illegal 
behavior by Microsoft. By eliminating the use of evidence, 
testimony, and depositions from the TC in any Court, it appears that 
the DOJ proposes to put Microsoft (the guilty defendant) beyond the 
reach of the law.
    Ninth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the Termination 
of the Final Judgement. Microsoft has been found guilty (of 
violating Laws and previous Court Consent Decrees). Many of the 
abuses which this document is the proposed remedy occurred more than 
5 years ago. But Microsoft continues to engage in behavior which 
appears to violate laws: During the current comment period, in which 
Microsoft might be expected to be particularly careful to behave as 
a ``good corporate citizen'', the Corporation failed to disclose 
meeting with aides of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss 
terms of the settlement before a December congressional hearing on 
the case. Even at this sensitive time, Microsoft behaves as if the 
Tunney Act doesn't apply to them.
    This guilty defendant, with well documented patterns of 
recurring illegal and abusive behavior, does not deserve such 
generous expiration terms. Expiration of the Final Judgement should 
be either (a) at least 10 years into the future; or (b) at the 
pleasure of the all of the Plaintiffs, in unanimous agreement.
    Tenth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding inclusion of a 
requirement that Software be ``Trademarked'' in definitions of 
``Microsoft Middleware'' and ``Microsoft Middleware Product''. 
Definitions J.2 (``Microsoft Middleware'') and K. (``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'') require that Software Code meet all of the 
listed conditions in order to be treated as an instance of the 
defined software classification. The requirements for code to be 
Trademarked (J.2 and K.2.b.iii) constitute an inappropriate 
``loophole'' for Microsoft to claim that vast amounts of software is 
neither ``Middleware'' nor ``Middleware Product'', and thereby not 
covered by any terms within the Proposed Final Judgement. Both of 
these conditions (J.2 and K.2.b.iii) should be removed.
    Eleventh Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the 
exclusion of ``Windows Explorer'' and ``Network Neighborhood'' from 
the definitions of J. ``Microsoft Middleware'' and K. ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product''.
    Assuring ISV access to Microsoft Networking (as provided by 
``Windows Explorer'', ``Network Neighborhood'', and their 
descendents) is an important component in providing a remedy for 
past Microsoft abuses in the Operating System competitive 
environment. Microsoft is currently in an ill-gotten monopoly 
position which allows it to destroy any third party software which 
attempts to take part within a network of Windows PCs and Servers 
(such as SAMBA), by creating new proprietary protocols. The 
functionality of Client/Server access (and peer-to-peer access) for 
file sharing should be included within K.2.a.
    Twelfth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the 
definition both M. ``Non-Microsoft Middleware'' and N. ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product'' in terms of exposing functionality 
via published APIs and porting to non-Microsoft Operating Systems.
    The functionality of Microsoft Middleware Products such as 
Windows Media Player have very little to do with exposing ``. . .  a 
range of functionality to ISVs through published APIs'', and there 
is no justification for requiring Non-Microsoft Products to do so. 
The definition of ``Non-Microsoft Middleware'' should be changed to 
include any Non-Microsoft software which (a) provides similar 
functionality to any of the Microsoft Middleware Products listed 
definition K.1; or (b) provides functionality analogous to (but not 
limited to) the more general list of general software product 
categories in K.2.a, as modified by my Eleventh Objection (above) to 
also include networking middleware.
    Thirteenth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the 
``million-copies within the previous year'' requirement within 
definition N. ``Non-Microsoft Middleware Product''. This 
distribution volume requirement is excessively large, and should be 
reduced to 100,000 copies distributed within the previous year. 
Also, since other items (such as definition C. ``Covered OEMs'') are 
worldwide, this requirement should be modified to include software 
distributions in other countries towards the count of 100,000 
copies. Fourteenth Objection from Richard Stockton, regarding the 
definition of ``Windows Operating System Product''.
    The final sentence in definition U, ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft at its sole discretion'' should be removed. With this 
strongly worded ``loophole'' present, Microsoft will be able to 
``bundle'' code which provides middleware functionality within the 
`Operating System', solely for preventing ISV access to necessary 
API and Communications Protocol documentation. Without this 
sentence, Microsoft would still be able to ``bundle'' code of their 
choice into the Operating System Product, but ISVs would be provided 
with at least some protection from abuse of this privilege via the 
complaint submission and resolution procedures (i.e., Microsoft's 
discretionary choices would be subject to review by the TC and the 
Court if complaints are submitted).



MTC-00014853

From: Ty Norton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft cannot be allowed to continually stifle competition in 
the computer arena. They have already done so without much effort 
simply by releasing new applications as the default in their 
operating system; thus, squelching the competition to a meager 
level. The most notable example of this is Netscape. They continue 
to destroy creative and exciting enterprises by releasing competing 
products for free, and as the default with their Windows operating 
system brand name. Examples of this are Windows Media Player vs Real 
Networks, or MSN Instant Messenger vs AOL's AIM or AOL's ICQ. Not to 
mention the obvious and present security concerns regarding Passport 
and it's licensing agreement.
    I've done my best to avoid their monopolistic practices as best 
I can, I use Linux. I still find myself frustrated with the amount 
of effort they have put into making life in the IT profession a 
living nightmare, especially for a Network Admin.
    I fear the day they will dominate web services with their .NET 
strategy, for that will be the end of all competition if adopted.
    Tyler Norton
    24323 NE 10th
    Sammamish, WA 98074
    Ty Norton [email protected]
    UNIX Network Consultant



MTC-00014854

From: Duane Mailing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My opinion may not count in your little consensus here (freedom 
should not be a popularity contest anyway) as I am from Canada, but 
I just wanted to point out that you people need to decide whether 
you want to live in the USA or China. In the USA, as it is supposed 
to be, achievement and effort are rewarded. In China ambitious 
people are

[[Page 26009]]

``criminals'' who have to bribe officials (people like yourselves) 
to look the other way so they can do business. Monopolies are 
strictly products of government intervention (ever heard of the post 
office) not free markets. The department of injustice needs to earn 
it's official title or get a new address ending in R.O.C.
    Duane Mailing
    Hamilton, Ontario, Canada



MTC-00014855

From: Nick Kearney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  4:15am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust settlement is bad for the consumers of 
the world this web site is also of interest to the trial http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Now for the start of my statement of Why this is the worst deal 
for consumers and the competition.
    Every deal I have seen as a consumer of Microsoft products since 
beginning my training as a computer tech has left me with this one 
nagging feeling stated in the topic. The Deal shows no signs of true 
punishment, no signs of giving up any of its undue monopoly power 
that they have.
    The recent deal with the Schools ``giving the operating systems 
to the school'' putting a price tag of 1 billion dollars is a good 
example of antitrust actions in full swing. these questions should 
be asked and not ignored!!
    Question #1 How does Microsoft giving the OS to the Schools in 
the other cases benefit competition which Microsoft has hurt and 
continues to hurt?
    Question #2 How does ``close source'' operating system make 
competition possible when you offer your own Database, Spreadsheet, 
Presentation software, and your own personal closed source Compiler 
(C# is a compiler that makes binaries, aka products like Office XP 
Windows XP) for the microsoft operating system?
    Question #3 How can any justice department person not take the 
very restrictive licenses and wording of the End User license 
agreement and not say they are attacking the competitors. EULA for 
the Microsoft operating system states plainly this about Java (Sun 
Microsystems cross platform computer language)
    9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN 
SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT 
TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR 
RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS 
REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR 
FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR 
TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, 
IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO 
DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
    Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to 
make this disclaimer. then they strike out at the consumer
    LIMITED WARRANTY. Microsoft warrants that the SOFTWARE PRODUCT 
will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying 
written materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of 
receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your 
state/jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits 
disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, 
BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED 
WARRANTY (NINETY (90) DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE 
NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY 
KIND. Some states/jurisdictions do not allow limitations on duration 
of an implied warranty, so the above limitation may not apply to 
you.
    Any supplements or updates to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, including 
without limitation, any (if any) service packs or hot fixes provided 
to you after the expiration of the ninety (90) day Limited Warranty 
period are not covered by any warranty or condition, express or 
implied, or statutory. LIMITATION ON REMEDIES; NO CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
OTHER DAMAGES. Your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited 
Warranty is as set forth below. Except for any refund elected by 
Microsoft, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT 
LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, if the SOFTWARE PRODUCT does not 
meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to the maximum extent 
allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its 
essential3 purpose. The terms ``Exclusion of Incidental, 
Consequential and Certain Other Damages'' below are also 
incorporated into this Limited Warranty. Some states/jurisdictions 
do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or 
consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not 
apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights. 
You may have others which vary from state/jurisdiction to state/
jurisdiction.
    YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire 
liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option 
from time to time, (a) return of the price paid (if any) for the 
SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or (b) repair or replacement of, the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is 
returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive 
the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are 
responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping 
the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty is void if 
failure of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT has resulted from accident, abuse, 
misapplication, abnormal use or a virus.
    Any replacement SOFTWARE PRODUCT will be warranted for the 
remainder of the original warranty period or thirty (30) days, 
whichever is longer. Outside the United States or Canada, neither 
these remedies nor any product support services offered by Microsoft 
are available without proof of purchase from an authorized 
international source. To exercise your remedy, contact: Microsoft, 
Attn. Microsoft Sales Information Center at the address specified 
above, or the Microsoft subsidiary servicing your country.
    DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The limited warranty that appears 
above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in 
lieu of any other express warranties (if any) created by any 
documentation or packaging. Except for the limited warranty and to 
the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its 
suppliers provide the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and Support Services (if any) 
AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties 
and conditions, either express, implied or statutory, including, but 
not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties or conditions of 
merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of lack of 
viruses, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, and 
of lack of negligence or lack of workmanlike effort, all with regard 
to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and the provision of or failure to provide 
Support Services. ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, 
QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR 
NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
    EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND CERTAIN OTHER 
DAMAGES.
    To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event 
shall Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, 
incidental, indirect, or consequential damages whatsoever 
(including, but not limited to, damages for loss of profits or 
confidential or other information, for business interruption, for 
personal injury, for loss of privacy, for failure to meet any duty 
including of good faith or of reasonable care, for negligence, and 
for any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or 
in any way related to the use of or inability to use the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT, the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, or 
otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this EULA, 
even in the event of the fault, tort (including negligence), strict 
liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty of Microsoft or 
any supplier, and even if Microsoft or any supplier has been advised 
of the possibility of such damages.
    LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES. Notwithstanding any 
damages that you might incur for any reason whatsoever (including, 
without limitation, all damages referenced above and all direct or 
general damages), the entire liability of Microsoft and any of its 
suppliers under any provision of this EULA and your exclusive remedy 
for all of the foregoing (except for any remedy of repair or 
replacement elected by Microsoft with respect to any breach of the 
Limited Warranty) shall be limited to the greater of the amount 
actually paid by you for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or U.S.$5.00. The 
foregoing limitations, exclusions and disclaimers described above 
shall apply to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, even 
if any remedy fails its essential purpose.

[[Page 26010]]

    This was just in my windows ME EULA
    Question #4 Now I may be a lawyer, but this is the Windows 95 / 
98 / ME / CE / XP End user license agreements should also be 
examined for antitrust concerns I liken the wording to Ford not 
taking any liability in mechanical defects in workmanship for the 
ford Explorer wilderness series tires that has killed 76 people. So 
far the windows Operating system has to it's credit Disabling a Navy 
class destroyer. The destroyer had to be towed to port! Should they 
not be liable for that in the future?
    Question #5 of all the settlement offers i still have to ask 
myself, Where is the real punishment, the Punishment that does make 
competition possible? If Microsoft offered to install Imacs in the 
schools Microsoft wins again Bill gates has invested 100 million 
dollars into apple computers upon the return of Steve Jobs as then 
interim president. Microsoft is the only one who makes Macintosh 
Office 2001 software that is on the shelves as well. These actions 
as they stand alone may not amount to an antitrust but when you 
control the compiler, the office software, the database engine, the 
3d display patent they recently bought off of SGI, and lock out 
Corel (Another 100 million dollar Microsoft investment which forced 
Corel linux off the shelves and forced them to support the Microsoft 
.net frame work), Netscape (Microsoft gave away their browser and 
took profits right out of Netscape's browser markets), Java 
(microsoft developed it's own incompatible version of java middle 
ware to stop java from gaining ground), borland (who makes a C 
compiler), and GNU (Who makes a Free C compiler) unless they ``get 
there programs signed device drivers signed'' which makes it 
difficult for competition to thrive and Innovate. The true meaning 
of the word innovate is what Microsoft is trying to control by 
giving them what they seek you play into their hands. So when 
applying the Law of the land I suggest you not forget you are 
representing the consumers of america as well, not just industries 
Microsoft has harmed, but We the people. I also hope that you can 
and do see the potential damage Microsoft has done and will do in 
the future.
    Thank you for your reading!
    Sincerely;
    Nick Kearney
    613 Elliott Avenue
    New Castle IN 47362-4881 PS Yes it is long winded but it is more 
direct than Bill Gates on tape questioning.



MTC-00014856

From: Zubin Dittia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  4:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Honorable Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
    Your Honor:
    I am a co-founder and the Chief Scientist at a small silicon 
valley startup company developing software infrastructure for the 
Internet. I have kept close track of the progress in the Microsoft 
antitrust case, and would like to take this opportunity to express 
my views. I would like to emphasize that these are my own views and 
do not reflect those of my company or any of its officers.
    As an industry participant, I feel that the Microsoft monopoly 
has had a devastating effect on competition and on innovation. Two 
aspects of this are especially disturbing to me:
    1. By applying pressure on PC hardware vendors through 
exclusivity contracts, threats of increased pricing for Windows 
products, and other coercive means, Microsoft has successfully been 
able to keep vendors from selling dual-boot PCs (i.e., PCs which 
have multiple operating systems installed, and which provide users 
an option of which operating system to run when the system first 
comes up). A case in point is Be, Inc., which was recently acquired 
by Palm. Be's product was a very simple and fast operating system 
which did not have very many applications, but which was very quick 
to boot at power on. Their product was designed to be installed 
alongside Windows in PCs. When the PC was powered up, the user was 
to be given a choice of whether to run Windows or Be. Thus, if the 
user wanted only to quickly check email or browse the web, there 
would be no need to wait a long time for Windows to boot up. Thanks 
to Microsoft pressure though, the hardware vendors which had been 
excited about providing such a choice to users had to back off from 
making any deals with Be, Inc. No one wants to go crosswise with a 
monopolist when you depend on them for most of your revenues. The 
end result was that users cannot enjoy a system that starts up in an 
instant--the losers were the consumers.
    Another case in point is the free operating system Linux. It 
does not cost PC hardware vendors anything to run this OS on the PCs 
they sell, beyond the very low cost of installation. Thus, one would 
expect vendors to have rushed to install Linux in addition to 
Windows on their PCs (in a dual-boot configuration), as an 
additional ``feature'' that would help them differentiate their 
products. We haven't seen this happen, except with very small PC 
vendors that sell their PCs at much higher prices. Again, this is 
either because of direct coercion, or from fear of retaliation from 
a company on whom the vendors are completely reliant for their 
continued existence.
    2. Perhaps even more damaging, but hidden from public view and 
not immediately evident, is the effect the monopoly has on 
innovation and on progress in the technology sector. Investors are 
fearful of investing in any project that appears to encroach on 
Microsoft's turf, and as a result much progress and many 
improvements in computer technology that could have been may never 
reach us. The resulting damage to the economy, and to the people, 
far outweighs the direct damage resulting from over-priced Microsoft 
products.
    I urge the court to consider these points when it makes its 
decision on this very important case. I for one believe that the 
proposed settlement hammered out between the DOJ and Microsoft has 
been politically influenced, and is not in the public interest. It 
will not help restore competition to the marketplace, and it does 
not do anything to punish Microsoft for its earlier misdeeds. I urge 
the court to reject that settlement as inadequate, and opt for a 
harsher remedy. With respect to point number 1 above, one remedy 
that I believe would help restore some modicum of competition would 
be to require Microsoft to adopt uniform and publicly known pricing 
for its products, to make their vendor contracts public knowledge, 
and to forbid them from discriminating on pricing or any other basis 
against hardware vendors that support competing products.
    Thank you for your time. I have great trust in the American 
Legal System, and I'm sure that my trust will again be upheld in 
this case.
    Respectfully yours,
    Zubin D. Dittia
    Chief Scientist
    Jibe Networks, Inc.
    3 West 3th Ave., Suite 17
    San Mateo, CA 94403.



MTC-00014857

From: Noel deSouza
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wonder why no one bothers about the Apache server? it's 
distributed for free with linux and competes with Internet 
Information server . . .  Media player, Disk Defrag, netmeeting etc 
etc are also bundled with Windows . . .  does anyone care??? maybe 
people who really build good software don't have to worry about free 
stuff.
    Noel deSouza



MTC-00014858

From: Whitehouse, Elaine
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  5:28am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    As a PC user, I feel that the witchhunt that you have going on 
with Microsoft needs to be ended. Since I am a PC user, I do not 
feel that any harm has come to me by way of Microsoft. You are 
putting a burden on a company who has been able to use its abilities 
to move forward in the field. This is the entire concept of 
marketing what you do best. If the competitors of Microsoft can't do 
as well, that is not the fault of Microsoft. The best company will 
keep moving into first place. Why is the government trying to put 
their hands into this? Please leave Microsoft alone!
    Elaine Whitehouse
    CC:'aoctp(a)aoctp.org''



MTC-00014859

From: Dennis Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. I live and 
work in France but I am a US citizen. Microsoft is no friend to US 
international business interests and the proposed settlement does 
nothing to make the US more competitive in international markets.
    Thank you
    Dennis Daniels

[[Page 26011]]



MTC-00014860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello my name is Erik Hill. I have been watching the Microsoft 
trial with interest. I am a computer programmer, and my livelihood 
is directly affected by having an abusive monopolist in the field. I 
feel that in order for any market to thrive, including software, it 
must be free of the kind of monopoly that Microsoft has proven 
itself to be. I am dissatisfied with the settlement that has been 
proposed because it is simply too weak to solve the problem. Simply, 
it is a band-aid, or less, and this problem requires a far more 
decisive action.
    Erik Hill
    Software Engineer
    Honolulu, Hawai'i



MTC-00014861

From: Allen Ashley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
anticompetitive lawsuit because I believe that settlement provides 
neither an adequate penalty for previous unlawful actions nor an 
assurance that such actions will not continue.
    Microsoft will always be able to leverage its operating system 
dominance into an uncompetitive force in the applications software 
area. An adequate remedy for the illegal historical practices of 
Microsoft must either remove their dominance in the operating 
system, or disable their leverage in applications development.
    Much of the ease-of-use features of the Microsoft operating 
systems come not from Microsoft, but from hardware vendors who must 
write driver software compatible with Microsoft. There is currently 
no motivation for these vendors to write drivers for alternative, 
less used operating systems.
    Thank you for this opportunity to present my opposition to the 
proposed settlement.
    My name is Allen Ashley ([email protected])



MTC-00014862

From: Craig Christophel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading many articles and the settlement, I beleive that 
there are still far too many loopholes that Microsoft will be able 
to use to circumvent the intent of the Court case.
    Craig.



MTC-00014863

From: J. Paul Reed
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--A step in the wrong direction
    You probably have a lot of these, so I won't write much: I just 
want to say I think the proposed settlement is pathetic. It doesn't 
protect consumers, it doesn't protect competition in the market, and 
it allows Microsoft to continue the shady and underhanded business 
practices that made them the monopoly a United States court claimed 
they are.
    The technology sector moves quickly; the remedy provided by the 
settlement is already moot; the ``browser wars'' that started it all 
are over. Microsoft has cemented their next foray into new markets 
with .NET and Windows XP. The only remedy that will even BEGIN to 
bring competition back to the market is to force Microsoft to open 
up, COMPLETELY, their source code so competing products may be made 
compatible with Microsoft-created ``standards.'' Forget trying to 
break them up (they'll just work together as they always have), and 
forget trying to have a panel oversee them with sanctions that, if 
broken, would require the same (useless) sanctions for a longer 
period of time.
    Don't let all your hard work (and our hard-earned tax dollars) 
to go waste.
    Thanks for your consideration.
    Later,
    Paul
    J. Paul Reed [email protected]  
web.sigkill.com/preed
    What's the point in being nuts if you can't have a little fun?--
John Nash, Jr., A Beautiful Mind



MTC-00014864

From: Osric Wilkinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am not a US citizen.
    I do think that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti 
Trust case is not sufficient.
    I would like to see Microsoft forced to release their source 
code to the public, so all developers could be on an equal footing 
(including non-us deveopers).
    Thanks for reading.
    Osric Wilkinson
    ``And I think that there's no question but that if someone 
looked down from Mars on the United States for the last three days, 
they would conclude that America is what's wrong with the world.'' 
Donald Rumsfed, US SecDef



MTC-00014865

From: Dan M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft. I hope the irony of using 
MS Hotmail to send this does not elude you.
    Thank you,
    Dan McCartney
    4306C Orion Dr
    Kapolei, HI 96707



MTC-00014866

From: Jeff Kramer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust case. Handing a company that has repeatedly 
broken the laws of this country yet another market segment as, of 
all things, punishment for breaking the laws of this country, is a 
truly terrible thing.
    Jeff Kramer
    [email protected]



MTC-00014867

From: kosh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the microsoft settlement that has been proposed 
since overall I feel it won't do any good long term. I do not think 
they need to be broken up and financial penalities are not the 
solution. Short term no solution will really work so what I want is 
a more permanent solution.
    (1) All formats used by microsoft should be completely 
documented at least 3 months before being used in any application. 
This includes extensions to the html spec, the word document format, 
and the smb file sharing format.
    (2) They should be required to implement the specificaion(s) in 
areas where their products work in addition to their own systems. In 
the case of web browsers they should be required to implement http 
1.0/1.1 completely and xhtml 1.0 to the letter of the spec.
    For example their support of much of http 1.0 and http 1.1 is 
shoddy at best and that makes it very hard to work with Internet 
Explorer as a web browser. All versions of IE so far have a but with 
the Content-Type header especially when working with the Content-
Disposition header however so far as I have been able to find out so 
far it is the only browser that has this bug. This makes the browser 
very hard to work with server side. It seems in many cases you can 
either work with Microsoft IE or you can work with the rest of the 
world. Unforunately because of their monopoly that puts developers 
in a very bad position since if you choose the non microsoft option 
most people can then no longer use the web application. Lynx, Links, 
Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla, Netscape 4.x, and Netscape 6.x all get 
those parts of the specificaion correct.
    (3) All API information in their products should be fully 
documented and available for free by download in an open format like 
html. Microsoft maintains too much of its monopoly power by using 
hidden APIs and if they where required to disclose all of that then 
it would get rid of that advantage.
    None of these items would hurt microsoft in the next year or 
maybe even the next two years however that is not the point of the 
penalty. The point is to restore the balance of the system and to 
help consumers. Long term this method will give consumers more 
choice by restoring competition to the market. In the end that is 
what I think the real purpose of antitrust is. Not to penalize the 
violators but to help the consumers by restoring the system.
    William Heymann

[[Page 26012]]

    Boulder, Colorado
    Web Media Engineering http://webme-eng.com



MTC-00014868

From: Kurt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  4:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is truely sad to see that after all the damage Microsoft has 
done to the computer industry that this administration wants to not 
only let them off, by not breaking up or punishing Microsoft, but 
will solidify their stranglehold. The settlement needs to make sure 
afferative action FOR linux and against microsoft takes place.
    Please be thtoughfull and honset. Break up Microsoft
    Thank You
    Kurt Bihler
    411 Reedwood dr
    Joliet, Il 60187



MTC-00014869

From: John Scothern
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  6:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    It does not go far enough in punishing Microsoft for their 
illegal actions, and does not prevent Microsoft from keeping their 
illegally gained monopoly.
    Regards,
    John Scothern



MTC-00014870

From: Bill Abbas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer software professional, I believe that the DOJ 
proposed final judgement with Microsoft is a bad idea which does not 
adequately protect the rest of the technology industry from 
Microsoft's predatory practices.
    Bill Abbas



MTC-00014871

From: David Laundra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have personally observed over the years, how Microsoft has 
destroyed it's competitors it the computing field. There used to be 
so many different companies out there; each offering their vision of 
what makes a good solution to a particular problem. Now, there are 
only a few foolish enough to take on the Microsoft giant.
    Over and over again we have seen MS take notice of a new 
technology and then either buy it or reverse engineer it and then 
give it away. In either case the competition is gone and MS 
strengthens it's stranglehold on the industry.
    Do not let them continue without strict oversight. MS has done 
so much damage already, don't let it continue.
    [email protected]



MTC-00014872

From: matt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed final judgment because it's too vague, 
contains loopholes that allow the monopoly to continue and does not 
require require Microsoft to release documentation about the format 
of Microsoft Office documents.
    I don't work for a microsoft competitor.
    [email protected]



MTC-00014873

From: Richard Lenoce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Stop the Settlement. It unfairly works towards MS advantage. 
This is especially true in the case of giving windows and other 
software away to education. This will permanently and financially 
hurt those companies who have their strengths in the education 
market. Isn't this what the suit was supposed to stop.
    MS should be paying a higher price and should be broken up into 
software and OS businesses.
    Richard Lenoce



MTC-00014876

From: Jonathan Walther
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed Microsoft settlement is extremely bad and 
harmful. Much more sweeping sanctions need to be made.
    Specifically, the secret agreements Microsoft has with hardware 
manufacturers that prevent any competitors from getting a foothold 
in the market with alternative software needs to be dealt with, or 
all other remedies will be toothless.
    JUST SAY NO!
    Jonathan



MTC-00014877

From: David Bachleda
To: Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02  4:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Bachleda
3424 Larks Lake Rd.
Pellston, MI 49769
January 23, 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,
    David Bachleda



MTC-00014878

From: El Jeffo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02  12:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that there should be more careful review and rewording of 
the settlement. This is not something we want in the long run as is. 
Microsoft has done a fine job of creating loopholes.
    Don't let the world down, work a little longer to reach a better 
settlement.
    Jeff



MTC-00014879

From: Graham Spencer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not tough enough on Microsoft. The 
settlement has a number of known loopholes which will render it as 
ineffective as the previous attempts to curb Microsoft's power.
    Microsoft has already shown a willingness to use its monopoly 
power to destroy competing non-profit projects (Linux, Samba, 
Kerberos, etc.; see http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-
4833927.html where a Microsoft executive calls free software an 
``intellectual property destroyer''), yet the proposed settlement 
offers no protection for future non-profit software.
    At the very least, the settlement should penalize Microsoft for 
the conduct that the court found illegal.
    Please consider a settlement that is less favorable to 
Microsoft. Thanks for listening.
    --g



MTC-00014880

From: Zach Pincus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wholeheartedly oppose the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
proposed by the DOJ and Microsoft.
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows:
    *The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even

[[Page 26013]]

contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    *The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    *The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    *The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not be covered at 
all.
    *The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    *The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that all use 
the Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    *The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    *The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    *The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    *Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    *Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned 
by the 1994 consent decree.)
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    *Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    *The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs-- 
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    *The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.



MTC-00014881

From: Anthony Kilna
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:12am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is the opinion of myself and most of my colleagues that the 
Microsoft settlement as it currently stands is merely a slap on the 
wrist, and won't get anywhere in terms of actually stopping 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.
    What really needs to happen is the dissolution of the means by 
which Microsoft leverages its monopolies to elbow their way into 
other industries. The common Microsoft APIs must be forced to be 
public (and not through any expensive licensing either, MS's main 
competitors compete on service, not licensing), and file formats 
should be forced public (MS has long used file formats to keep a 
stranglehold on the office applications market). The only way I can 
see the file formats and APIs being opened in a way reasonable for 
competitors to use as well as MS itself is a break-up (which will 
level the playing field and remove the unfair MS advantage that they 
have been leveraging).



MTC-00014882

From: Chris Machemer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    One of my biggest concerns with the proposed settlement is the 
fact that there's no predetermined penalties for MS, should they 
violate the conditions of the settlement.
    If they do step over the line, I expect another multi-year trial 
would be required before a penalty could be handed over. Any list of 
rules should definitely include the penalties, should those rules be 
violated.
    Thank you for your time.
    Chris Machemer
    Sr Engineer--R&D Applications Development
    Wyeth-Ayerst, Collegeville, PA



MTC-00014883

From: Christopher Lee Fleck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the Microsoft settlement in its current form 
because it does nothing to stop Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices and because the current settlement does nothing but 
further solidify the monopoly Microsoft currently has.
    Thank you,
    Christopher Lee Fleck



MTC-00014884

From: Chuck Stuart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings.
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft in the recent 
anti-trust case to be profoundly flawed. Under the guise of 
punishment, the company will be providing substantial amounts of its 
software to educational institutions, flooding out whatever is 
already there or what they would normally have purchased or donated. 
Given that Microsoft already locks people into an upgrade cycle to 
maintain ``compatibility'' with previous applications and files, the 
settlement will increase the problem by opening additional markets 
to the company.
    Chuck Stuart
    2137 Belle Vernon Drive
    Rochester Hills, MI 48309



MTC-00014885

From: Michael Lucas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    As a computer professional, I have a strong interest in the 
outcome of the Microsoft antitrust trial.
    Microsoft has done an untold amount of damage with their 
unethical business practices. I strongly encourage the court to 
reject this settlement; it falls short in countless ways.
    Thank you,
    Michael Lucas
    Michael Lucas
    [email protected], [email protected]



MTC-00014886

From: Scott Traynor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think settling is a very bad idea. Having once worked for 
companies that used to compete with microsoft, it was not 
economicilly feasable to compete with a company that can use its 
monoploy to its advantage.
    ``Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat''
    John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987



MTC-00014887

From: Yves Pelletier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Even though I am not a US citizen, I feel I must make my opinion 
known, because the results of this case will have an impact on the 
way Microsoft conducts its business worldwide.
    The current settlement proposal is bad for American businesses 
and it is bad for the consumers. If applied, it would demonstrate to 
Microsoft that the antitrust laws that it

[[Page 26014]]

broke have no teeth and that it can act as ruthlessly as it pleases 
againts its competitors and even its own customers, with little fear 
of reprisal. Since it was found guilty of abusing its monopoly 
position, Microsoft has shown no indication that it had any 
intention of changing the abusive nature of its core business 
practices. A much stronger penalty needs to be applied than that 
which is currently proposed by the DoJ.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Yves Pelletier
    1870 rue Saint-Cyr
    Ville Saint-Laurent
    Quebec, Canada H4L 3A2



MTC-00014888

From: Tom Allison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Settlement is a really bad idea.
    I am not a lawyer, but I can readily see numerous holes and gaps 
in the settlement which will very quickly render this entire process 
a futile effort.
    There is no real method of enforcement and little definition of 
any scope in the restrictions.



MTC-00014889

From: James Blackwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  10:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the reader,
    I send this email in opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
Antitrust settlement.
    Our country must consider a more severe remedy to the 
unreasonable size of the Microsoft monopoly. Imagine if 90% of the 
milk sold in the United States were sold by only one company. That 
company would be allowed to dictate not only the price of milk, but 
the terms under which it was sold! So too it is with Microsoft. 
Americans pay over $300 for Microsoft Office with no other option 
due to Microsoft's proprietary formats. Americans shell out over $90 
for the only consumer targeted operating system.
    What does this money buy us? Nothing much. We do not even own 
the compact discs that the software arrives on. We are forced to 
agree to the terms of Microsoft's end user licenses that have us 
agree that their software may not work at all!
    How could a company manage such a license unless there were no 
other choice? While American citizens pay increasingly exorbiant 
rates for a good that is not even guaranteed to work, Microsoft 
makes extraordinary profits.
    These profits are more than ample to prevent entry into the 
browser market, or most any other market that Microsoft is 
interested in. Netscape no more had a chance in survival once the 
words ``Let's kill them'' were uttered than I would if the Chicago 
mafia muttered those words for me. Break the company up into three 
parts: Microsoft Windows, the operating system branch; Office into 
another company; and all other assets into a third company.
    It is only by breaking up Microsoft into seperate parts that the 
company will be reduced to a size digestible by competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    James Blackwell



MTC-00014890

From: Paul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What has been done via the settlement is disgusting. Miscrosoft, 
obviously, wrote and stands behind these terms, they are not enough. 
Not even close, the Japanese were not allowed to name the conditions 
of thier surrender. Why should Microsoft?
    They should, at the very least, be made to strip the OS of all 
thier hooks, and sell it as such. You really should look more too 
all of thier products as the ``rogue'' states have done, this is not 
just as OS monopoly, but an Office Monopoly and if we don't get 
something done soon, a Media Player Monopoly and a Internet(.Net) 
Monopoly.
    This company is afraid of no-one, and will do whatever it takes 
to make loopholes.
    They have dead people writing letters in their support for 
crying out loud! They will do anything and must be stopped, cold, 
NOW!
    Thank you from a concerned and scared(and alive) citizen of the 
United
    States,
    Paul Stroud
    Network Administrator



MTC-00014891

From: Rocky Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement between the 9 states will do nothing 
but hurt the industry. There are to many loop holes that even I, a 
college student, can see. MS used their monopolistic powers to gain 
marketshare and money, both in which this act allows to keep. I urge 
you not to accept the settlement in its current form! Microsoft can 
not be allowed to win this one!



MTC-00014892

From: Oliver M . Bolzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the settelement with Microsoft in it's current form.
    The are many reasons for it, but to just state a few
    Steadily increasing prices. Since the settlement-course has 
come, Microsoft OSs prices are climbing steeply. As in many people's 
eyes there is no alternative, this abuse of monopoly really hurts 
the worlds development. Less children can own a computer. It's wrong 
that for a $1000 PC, $300 is just for the OS.
    The settlement is too short-sighted. It only covers current 
products but does not try to prevent rehappening of anti-competetive 
movements in next versions of the Microsoft OS. Too narrow 
definitions of various terms, including API and middleware, handling 
of Java and more.
    The Settlement hinders the development of compatible OSes. The 
documents Microsfot must make open (not many) can not to be used to 
block the monopoly
    no protection against patents. Even it Microsoft complys with 
settlement and ``opens'' up the API and other aspects of their 
products. The use of such information could be protected by dumb 
software patents (which should not have been granted in the first 
place) and thus the opening made useless.
    intentional incompatibilities are still allowed (like was done 
with DR-DOS)
    OEMs are not liberated. Microsofts monopoly-abusing OEM 
practices (bundle all PCs with Windows, or we don't sell to you) are 
still allowed. I really hope that the DoJ doesn't do the biggest 
mistake in it's after-war history.
    Oliver M. Bolzer
    [email protected]



MTC-00014893

From: crayz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a joke. Please do 
not accept any settlement that does not absolutely prevent this 
ruthless company from engaging in its anticompetitive practices. As 
a computer user, as a US citizen, and as a voter, I am sick of 
seeing the government let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist. 
They have shown contempt for the rule of law by consistently 
breaking the provisions of the previous ruling against them, and to 
accept a nearly identical punishment this time around is simply 
idiocy.
    Paul Meserve



MTC-00014895

From: Zot O'Connor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed the the Microsoft settlement as proposed for a 
number of reasons.
    The simplest is that it will do nothing to a) Fix the wrongs 
that Microsoft has committed on the IT industry, and b) prevent them 
from happening in the future.
    Microsoft has little incentive to stop using its monoply to 
thwart opposing companies.
    This has hurt consumer, and our national interests.
    Only recently did Microsoft *claim* to make security important. 
That means for the last upteen years the majority of our Operating 
Systems, browsers, works processors and intranet servers were built 
with people who did not consider security a high priority.
    This puts our country at constant risk for cyber warfare.
    Had we had a system of competing companies, with people able to 
choose from several OSes, browsers, and servers then we would have 
the choice to use competition to make Microsoft Secure.
    I do beleive Microsoft should be broken up. If we look at when 
break ups were done, the companies (e.g. ATT) performed much greater 
service and actually maintain a sense of interneal competetion. With 
Microsoft they have ignored any sense of competetion by driving it 
out.
    Currently Microsoft is continuing it s poor behavior with XP. 
Little known to users is

[[Page 26015]]

the fact that they have to connect to Microsoft's server and 
register the product AFTER they have bought and entered their local 
serial number in. If they don't Microsoft will render their data 
unreadable.
    Now, if there was 3 OSes on the market, would consumers allow 
that?
    No.
    Zot O'Connor
    http://www.ZotConsulting.com
    http://www.WhiteKnightHackers.com



MTC-00014896

From: Barbara Dollner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:25am
Subject: USAGDollner--David--1031--0115
315 Jumping Branch Road
Tamassee, SC 29686-2117
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    Pursuant to the recently announced public comment period on the 
Microsoft settlement, I am writing to express my support for the 
settlement and to ask that the Justice Department cease the 
Microsoft litigation.
    Please understand that I was opposed to this litigation from the 
beginning. I strongly feel that Microsoft was targeted solely 
because of their size and their success. Regardless, I understand 
Microsoft has made some significant concessions in this agreement, 
including opening its Windows systems to competition from non-
Microsoft Internet providers, like AOL Time Warner. This concession, 
along with its concession of uniform, United States-negotiated, 
pricing for all major computer makers, should allow additional 
competition in the computer market. That is all that should be asked 
of Microsoft. Please accept the settlement reached with Microsoft 
and order these companies to get back to business.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David Dollner
    cc: Senator Strom Thurmond
    Representative Lindsey Graham



MTC-00014897

From: Eric Hultin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I'm sure that 
others have stated more eloquent reasons they do not like the 
settlement, and I will not waste your time by rehashing them.
    Eric Hultin



MTC-00014898

From: Jon Niola
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft et al,
    Upon reviewing the propose Microsoft dettlement, I feel inclined 
to inform you that I as a citizen of the United States do not feel 
it does enough to prevent future anti-competitive behavior.
    While I believe competition in the consumer and business 
software market is vital to our country, I also believe it would be 
disastrous if we did not have the compatability within the 
marketplace that the large installed base of Windows-powered 
computers provides.
    I think a just solution would be to require Microsoft 
corporation to license their source code to competitors so that 
other companies may produce compatable, yet competitive versions of 
the ubiquitous operating system.
    The results this would yield are two fold. First off, Microsoft 
would not be able to bury any hidden functionality in their 
operating system that makes their applications perform better or 
have a more robust feature set. Secondly, this will not cause the 
financial harm that a segmented, incompatable software marketplace 
would cause.
    Though Microsoft has done signifigant harm to other companies in 
their industry, sanctions have to be cautiously weighed to prevent 
futher harm to competitors, but at the same time prevent harm to the 
ancillary, non-affiliated companies that depend on Microsoft status 
quo. There are many software vendors out there that build their 
software only for the Windows platform because of costs. Why build 
for other operating systems for the same costs when you can build 
for a ubiquitous platform like Windows? Other competitive companies 
could build Windows compatible software to run on other operating 
systems if they were legally allowed to license the Windows source 
code to do so.
    Thank you,
    --Jonathan Paul Niola



MTC-00014900

From: Ed Schlunder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Microsoft uses many exclusionary licensing practices, many of 
which are not mentioned in the proposed final judgement. For 
example, Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications. Here is a quote directly from one of their EULAs:
    ``. . .  you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT 
in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . . ''
    Microsoft's only serious, but weak, competitor at the moment is 
Open Source software. From the EULA above, Microsoft is BLATENTLY 
excluding Open Source software from participation in their markets. 
You must not let them get away with this kind of behavior!
    Ed Schlunder [email protected]>
    `One Microsoft Way' is unfortunately more than just an address.



MTC-00014901

From: Rob Dunne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement in its current state is bad.
    I have read the proposed settlement, and I think it is not good 
enough. While the settlement does try to protect retaliation vs. 
OEMs, ISVs and IHVs who support alternatives to Windows, the 
settlement does not make sure that Microsoft raises no artificial 
barriers against non Microsoft operating systems which implement the 
APIs needed to run application programs written for Windows.
    Also too many of the important API's would remain documented. 
Especially since they can easily claim it is for security reasons.
    Another problem is the only real possible competition to MS in 
the server realm (not even talking desktop) is open source software. 
However by putting unreasonable restrictions on documentation and by 
patents covering Windows APIs remaining undisclosed the settlement 
is not helping the only possible competition to Microsoft's 
monopoly.
    Another thing the settlement ignores is Microsoft's lock in by 
using undocumented file formats. This creates a High Application 
Barrier to Entry and creates lock-in. (yes many office file formats 
are documented, but the documentation is poor, inaccurate, and 
incomplete.)
    Thank you,
    Robert Dunne
    System Administrator



MTC-00014902

From: Max Bell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement does not properly punish 
Microsoft for its frequent and willful violations of anti-trust (and 
other) law and should not be accepted. The American people deserve 
more than another whitewash. Not that they'll get more -- I expect 
this letter will not be enough to overcome Gates'' friends in high 
places (like the White House).
    Max Bell



MTC-00014903

From: Herzog @ppg03.powerpg.com Paul Herzog
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft stifles 
innovation, through it's monopolistic practices. Microsoft seeks to 
obliterate all competitors, at virtually any cost (and they have the 
financial means to do so). Microsoft uses it's monopolistic position 
in one area to spread it's same position to other areas (like online 
banking, internet connectivity, car and home information, management 
and entertainment systems, special-purpose embedded computers for 
manufacturing and commerce, hand held telephones, PDA's, and much 
more). This settlement will not stop Microsoft from

[[Page 26016]]

dominating these industries as well. Microsoft is expert as 
spreading it's influence into every nook and cranny where a computer 
(large and small) is used. Face it, every aspect of our lives has 
now, or is going to be affected by computers--this means Microsoft 
software.
    There are three important world powers: The United States of 
America, the Peoples Republic of China, and Microsoft. I don;t 
believe the proposed settlement will be effective at stopping 
Microsoft's march toward becomming the single most important World 
Power, and holding all peoples, across all national borders hostage 
to using it's software, and (here's the dangerous part) and IT'S 
SOFTWARE ALONE!!! I'm counting on the US Department of Justice to 
help prevent this terrible organization from dominating all 
industries, and peoples. The proposed settlement just doesn't come 
close to addressing the single largest threat against freedom--
Microsoft. For the good of the United States, and all peoples around 
the world, please rethink the proposed settlement with Microsoft, 
and work toward a settlement that actually addresses the Microsoft 
threat, and the Microsoft problem effectively.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Herzog
    President
    Gapware Systems Inc.
    Flanders, New Jersey 07836



MTC-00014904

From: Rocky Stout
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is bad, and does nothing to stop Microsoft from 
pushing ahead full steam. This does nothing to protect consumers let 
alone any company that Microsoft will put out of business. Do not 
accept the proposal as it stands!



MTC-00014905

From: Aki Helin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:28am
Subject: Microsort settlement in Tunney Act
    I have read about the proposed settlement regarding the Tunney 
Act and I believe that the current settlement is too favorable to 
Microsoft. Please consider this as a vote to reconsider the 
settlement.
    Aki helin,
    Software engineer,
    Oulu, Finland



MTC-00014906

From: Heikki Levanto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can not believe Microsoft is getting away with this 
settlement! In my eyes the ``settlement'' amounts to letting MS off 
with a warning, after being found guilty. An encouragement to 
continue unlawful and uhealthy practices, at a cost to both American 
and international society. At least here in Europe, the American 
legal system has been the enjoying ever decreasing respect, with 
lawyers involved in anything, and courts awarding outrageous 
compensations... We used to joke that Americans get the best justice 
money can buy. Don't let MS prove that joke right!
    Yours sincerely
    Heikki Levanto
    manager, LSD.
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Heikki Levanto
    LSD--Levanto Software Development
    [email protected]>



MTC-00014907

From: Matthew Sachs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an independant software vendor (ISV) and a computing 
enthusiast, I do not support the proposed settlement. It is an 
excellent base, but it has several serious problem which prevent it 
from being a suitable remedy to the case in its current form. Some 
of the problems which I feel are the most pressing are outlined 
below.
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' paragraphs 20 and 39).
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (para. 52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN because they work 
on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems.
    --Matthew Sachs, Merrick, NY, US



MTC-00014908

From: Tobias Reif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00014909

From: Andrew Chatham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed final 
judgement against Microsoft in the current antitrust case, because I 
do not think it goes far enough to prevent Microsoft from abusing 
its monopoly powers in the future. While a few parts, such as 
forbidding intimidation of OEMs and ISVs, are necessary in any 
effective remedy, the rest of the proposed remedy falls short. In 
particular, it ignores one of the largest barriers to entry, namely 
Microsoft's proprietary file formats and protocols. Microsoft has 
and will continue to abuse its monopoly through its file formats and 
network protocols (files for Microsoft Office and the SMB network 
protocol in particular). Without full documentation of these 
formats, interoperability (and therefore competition) with Microsoft 
will continue to be practically impossible.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Chatham
    Andrew Chatham
    2408 Hideaway Pl.
    Jackson, Mississippi 39211



MTC-00014910

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The current ``Proposed Settlement'' for the Microsoft case is 
insufficient. It will not end in any significant change in the way 
Microsoft does business. I feel that as long as the company is 
allowed to bundle their applications with their Operating System 
they will always be able to maintain their monopoly , and 
artificially eliminate their competition.
    The status quo is a very powerful weapon in the desktop market. 
It's mainly because most people are to scared, or intimidated to try 
anything other than what is bundled with their computer. This isn't 
Microsoft fault, but they have taken advantage of it by bundling 
applications into their OS. I don't feel this topic has been address 
properly. The key reason that Netscape failed as a company was 
because Internet Explorer was given away and was bundled with 
Windows. If these two factors are not address, then Microsoft will 
continue to maintain they monopoly. In fact, Windows XP should be 
examined very closely, it has many applications bundled just as 
Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows 98. Where these 
applications are included specifically to stop competing products, 
not to make Windows look more attractive as a product.
    I believe that Microsoft should be forced to realize source code 
to their OS. Without charge to competing products, including open 
source offering such as Wine (www.winehq.com). This is important to 
allow for a stable platform of competition. I realize that this can 
only be implemented as a punishment . Microsoft should be broken 
into two companies, one for applications and one for their OS . This 
is not an extreme solution. This would force Microsoft to improve 
the quality of their OS. May people believe that Microsoft produces 
a quality OS, which is wrong. They produce an OS that is such a 
security hazard many countries decline to use it. As we have seen 
with many worms and viruses , a person using Window should be 
prepared to share all of their information with the rest of the 
internet. Yet, not other OS has the same problem. This alone should 
be construed as harm to consumers, and adequate reason for the 
company to be broken up.
    I would be very disappointed to see Microsoft get off without 
punishment. The current ``Proposed Settlement'' contains far to many 
loopholes for Microsoft to continue it's bad and harmful behavior.
    Sincerely
    Daniel Walker



MTC-00014911

From: Ilan Rabinovitch

[[Page 26017]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Please do not accept the Microsoft settlement it is a bad idea 
and will hurt both the economy and consumers.
    The biggest issue I take with the settlement is that it fails to 
prohibit many of the anticompetetive practices that brought 
Microsoft into is position as a monopoly. For example the settlement 
does not resolve issues regarding anticompetitive licensing. Many of 
Microsoft's end user license agreements make it illegal to use their 
software work with open source software.
    Another issue is that it does not sufficiently limit Microsoft's 
ability to bully OEMs and ISVs.
    Among other things one solution I propose is for Microsoft to 
open source their browser (Internet Explorer) as well as 
discontinued versions of their software (DOS, Windows 3.xx, Windows 
95, NT 3.51, Windows NT 4, and 98 when it reaches obseletion).
    Microsoft should be required to contribute LARGE ammounts of 
funds to create a educational program that teaches children around 
the country how to use the products of their competitors. This 
should start in lower grades such as kindergarden and continue 
through the end of high school. It should include Apple's Mac OS and 
OS X operating system as well as Linux (or any form of Unix such as 
one of the BSDs). In order to make this training program work 
Microsoft should pay for the retraining of IT professionals in 
educational institutions so that they know how to work with Unix 
(linux,bsd, solaris, etc) and other non-windows environments.
    Microsoft should be restricted from entering the home 
entertainment market (TiVo type devices, set top boxes, and their 
Xbox gaming console). And if they do enter these markets a 
percentage of their income should be contributed back into research 
funding for competitors as well as for training/educational programs 
previously mentioned.
    I have only mentioned a few of the issues I have with the 
current settlement. I urge you to reject the settlement and find a 
better solution.
    Ilan Rabinovitch
    Encino, CA 91316



MTC-00014912

From: Mike Desjardins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to urge you to reconsider the settlement against 
Microsoft in it's antitrust case. The settlement, in its current 
form, does not punish Microsoft adequately, nor does it help 
Microsoft's compentitors, who were most hurt by Microsoft's 
predatory business practices.
    Thank You.
    Mike Desjardins
    Gray, ME



MTC-00014913

From: Rob Hranac
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I write to inform you of my strong objection to the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. The current terms of the settlement, which 
favor conduct remedies over structural remedies, will not curtail 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. As past agreements with 
Microsoft have shown, conduct remedies quickly become ineffective in 
a fast changing industry and against such a determined and dominant 
company.
    Only a structural separation of the operating systems unit from 
the rest of the company will take away Microsoft's ability and will 
to use its monopolistic operating system advantage to the detriment 
of competitors in all industries and, therefore, the computing world 
as a whole. The settlement, as it stands, will significantly weaken 
the U.S. software industry by allowing a single monopolist to 
continue to stifle innovation on nearly all important computing 
fronts. At a time when competition from abroad is greater than ever, 
this is unacceptable.
    As a citizen, consumer, and shareholder in the United States, I, 
therefore, strongly object to the weak terms of the settlement on 
the grounds that it will significantly hurt our economic system and 
universally harm U.S. consumers. I am stunned that the government of 
the United States spent several years winning this complex and 
important decision, only to concede to Microsoft rather than 
effecting positive change for consumers and shareholders and I ask 
you to reconsider. My vote in future elections will only go to those 
who strive to create a competitive marketplace and this settlement 
does not do that.
    Rob Hranac
    120 Berkeley Place, Apartment #2
    Brooklyn, NY 11217



MTC-00014914

From: Justin Mahn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO settlement. break Microsoft up.



MTC-00014915

From: David Ritter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement with Microsoft is not acceptable. A hand 
slap will not stop this monopoly, please make the punishment 
appropriate to the size of the problem.
    David Ritter



MTC-00014916

From: Selden Thaddeus N DLVA
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my complaint with the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft Antitrust trial. Simply, I feel that what is 
proposed does little to either punish or prevent Microsoft from 
abusing their monopoly powers.
    Thank you,
    Thaddeus Selden



MTC-00014917

From: Matthew J. Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Being a member of the IT/OEM industry and a small business, I 
have been greatly affected by the monster that is Microsoft. I feel 
that this proposed settlement is little more than an license for 
Microsoft Corporation to continue their un-American monopolistic 
business practices unabated. Shame on the Justice Department for 
short-mindedly considering this settlement.
    Matthew J. Evans
    Matthew J. Evans
    Professional Hobbyist
    Chimayo, New Mexico, USA
    mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00014918

From: Jeff Gilmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a BAD idea.
    Jeff Gilmore



MTC-00014919

From: Alex
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    This settlement is not fair and therefore must be re-evaluated.
    regards,
    Alex Bongers.



MTC-00014920

From: Bill Abbas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment does not adequately protect the 
computer industry from predatory practices by Microsoft.
    The nature of a monopoly in a core computer software component 
such as an operating system provides immense leverage for 
distributing application level software. As a software professional 
with over 20 years experience in the field, I have consistently seen 
Microsoft deliver software applications which are tied to the 
underlying operating system in a way not available to outside 
applications, and I have consistently seen Microsoft modify it's 
operating system to render competing applications inoperable. In my 
opinion, when Microsoft extols the virtues of ``innovation'', they 
mean ``Microsoft innovation''; innovative products from other 
companies are met with coordinated technical/marketing campaigns 
design to crush them. Specific examples are available upon request, 
although I suspect you have all the evidence you'll ever need 
already.
    The provision of the PFJ to publish Windows APIs is flawed for a 
number of reasons. Primarily, it does not fully define all of the 
APIs which will be relevant in the future. Rather, it specifically 
defines a

[[Page 26018]]

narrow set of current Microsoft applications whose APIs must be 
published. This set is a) not complete, and b) does not address any 
future Microsoft products. In addition, since timing is a crucial 
element of a software product's success, the publication of APIs 
used by products that are already shipping is of minimal value. The 
real value of published APIs is in revealing the operating system 
functionality used by the Microsoft products which are currently 
planned or in development.
    The core problem, as I see it, is that Microsoft is a ``fox 
guarding the henhouse''. Microsoft has shown neither the inclination 
or the integrity to segregate their application development from 
their operating system development. Unless the company is divided 
into 2 or more independent entities, I am afraid that Microsoft will 
continue to increasingly dominate the field by leveraging their 
operating system monopoly.
    Bill Abbas
    Senior Software Architect
    CRM Solutions, Inc.
    Sanford, FL



MTC-00014921

From: Rob Ansaldo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:43am
Subject: proposed settlement with Microsoft
    I recently became aware of the Tunney Act and wish to make my 
opinion known regarding the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
settlement as it stands will be ineffectual in preventing Microsoft 
from continuing it's anti-competitive business model, it does not 
foster competition and allows sufficient room for Microsoft to be 
highly selective (and restrictive) in the information it provides to 
ISVs. As written, the settlement definitions are either vague or too 
narrow to be effective. It is my opinion that the Justice Department 
should go back to the drawing board with this settlement--it will 
not be effective and will not foster a more competitive marketspace.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Ansaldo
    Leeds, MA



MTC-00014922

From: Brian Fahrlander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There's so much wrong with the settlement I don't know where to 
begin.
    The typical Microsoft business style is based on lies, 
leveraging their stance against anyone who might make ``too much'' 
of a dent in their empire. Case in point: Blue Mountain Greeting 
Cards, Netscape, and Spyglass software.
    And even when there's nothing illegal or unethical involved, 
they still don't ``get it right'', and that's intentional. Case in 
point:
    TCP/IP is a standard that's been around for decades. There's an 
RFC on how to do it so that your machines/programs are compatible 
and everything works. Microsoft coded up (or perhaps stole) a TCP/IP 
``stack'' that works in every way but one, as far as I know:
    When another host ``pings'' a Microsoft machine by expicit IP 
address, it answers. (If it didn't, it would be almost useless). 
When someone sends a ``broadcast ping'' (which all hosts on a subnet 
are supposed to answer) it does NOT answer the ping. A little odd, 
but we can live with it.
    If the subnet's giving out IP addresses that can change, called 
``DHCP'', all hosts are supposed to talk for the duration of their 
``lease'' on that address. When the lease expires, and the Microsoft 
box is supposed to shut up, it still answers. Any machine probing 
the old address to ensure it doesn't hand out an address that's 
actually in use (causing nasty problems for the net) will get a 
response from the Microsoft box, and the old address is marked as 
``in use''. Soon, all the addresses available will be marked ``in 
use'' and the entire network crashes.
    Now why would they do this? They want to sell NT for servers.
    This is key:
    ``The old, open, Unix/Linux machines don't support Microsoft. 
And it's ALL the Microsoft machines, so it's not their fault; your 
Unix servers can't handle these new machines.''
    Then, instead of paying nothing, the management buys two (not 
one) NT machines, bringing even more non-standard features that 
require more payments to Microsoft. It requires two machines, 
costing about $4,000 total because NT isn't stable enough to be 
counted on 24/7.
    This is just one of the hundreds of crooked deals and te way 
they do business.
    But you KNOW all of this. What you fear about Microsoft is what 
it will do to millions of computer users. Fear not: no one gets any 
real tech support from Microsoft. They do it all in-house and 
through the net. Home users SHOULD be going to their local reseller 
anyway. It's time to put some profitability back in it for the 
little guys. As much as I'd like to setup a computer store, there's 
no way- there's almost no profit in it at all.
    I've been in computers since CP/M was still going strong, about 
1978. When Microsoft began to grow it was fun- every day a new 
thing, tricks to learn and things got done. Now, it's only about 
money and the *perception* of value. There are still viruses, even 
after 18 years of development, and they're making new security 
holes. . . by policy. . . every day.
    It's got to stop. It has, for me. I sworn off Microsoft one day 
in 1993 and never went back. But it's still the prevailing monopoly 
and it's no longer funtional. Point out *real* differences and new 
features about Word95 that differ from those in Word2k or WordXP. 
There aren't any. But they keep changing the file format so you'll 
have to buy the new version just the same.
    They're holding back technology; it's time to put Word to bed 
and put those developers on new projects, but they won't. And while 
Word remains the (undocumented) standard file format for business, 
other folks who WILL go where the features are can't get a foothold.
    The time for the monopoly is over; let someone who has the true 
needs of the PEOPLE in mind, not the ever-staggering cash crop. 
Doesn't it bother you that Microsoft now has enough money that they 
could literally buy their own ``Seventh Fleet''? Just what do you 
suppose they'll do with that much money? They sure aren't paying 
programmers to add features or remove viruses.
    . . . and people think they're stable enough to hold private, 
confidential information like credit cards in .NET? It's time. 
You're bigger than Microsoft, and now you're the only one.
    Brian Fahrl?nder
    Linux Zealot, Conservative, and Technomad
    Evansville, IN
    ICQ 5119262
    http://www.kamakiriad.com/aboutme.html
    LinPhone: [email protected]
    Virus-hackers are open-source; they harness the power of 
millions of to crack OSes. Their power is legendary. Ask anyone 
running Microsoft. Doesn't it just make sense to battle that with 
millions of contributors to combat these problems? That's what Linux 
and *BSD are all about.



MTC-00014923

From: Jon Lapham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen living abroad. I believe that the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    My proposed solution: levy a heavy fine against MS, use the 
money to buy computers for schools, running linux.
    Jon Lapham
    Extracta Moliculas Naturais, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
    email: [email protected] web: http://www.extracta.com.br/



MTC-00014924

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I believe this settlement is not in the public interest.
    I believe this settlement does NOTHING to penalize Microsoft for 
what it has done to companies like Netscape and more importantly I 
believe that it does NOT prevent them from continuing to dominate 
and stifle the industry.
    Resolving this litigation quickly is not the best way to get the 
economy going--in fact loosing the Microsoft grip on the industry is 
the best way to encourage the economy. Once they cannot harm 
companies more companies will survive and a flourishing fauna and 
flora will emerge--employing millions of people.
    I am myself building a business and I believe it is only time 
before Microsoft stomps on me like they have done to countless 
companies--many of whom testified and many more who did not out of 
fear. They dominate this industry so thoroughly that they impede 
growth and stifle innovation. They are bad for this industry and 
they are bad for this country.
    The trial has shown they are a monopoly, the trial showed they 
harmed Netscape--the action you are taking now MUST protect the 
industry from them, it MUST ensure they

[[Page 26019]]

cannot do the same again, it must take steps to ensure a level 
playing field where they do not have an unfair advantage (being 
their monopoly). HAVING a monopoly is not illegal, but using it AS 
THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND TO DO is illegal.
    Every court in the land (district up to supreme) has confirmed 
they did wrong. This settlement is such a poor attempt as redressing 
the situation, it cannot be considered valid. I do not support it. 
Having won in all the courts, now the government will lose in the 
settlement. The industry will continue to suffer and the US economy 
will suffer along with it. Innovation and growth cannot resume until 
this monopoly is stopped--and that's YOUR job.
    This is an anonymous email because I don't believe my identity 
will be protected (see the recent incident with the litigation 
regarding ``Lindows'' where Lindows.com was forced to provide the 
details of their customers and petitioners to Microsoft).
    Sincerely,
    Mark.



MTC-00014925

From: Mike Lundy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    Please do not finalize this mistake. The proposed judgment does 
not do anything toward preventing Microsoft's less than appropriate 
tactics. Please, I would like to see Microsoft's API's opened (the 
various office formats, directx, etc) so that Microsoft's 
stranglehold on the industry can at least be matched. Please, do not 
let this continue.



MTC-00014926

From: Marco Baringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i do not believe the settlement, as it currently stands, will do 
anything to stop or even weaken microsoft's strangle hold on the IT 
industry. I am a US citizen who currently works developing software 
and has to constantly fight against microsoft inorder to do my job. 
--
    -Marco
    Ring the bells that still can ring.
    Forget the perfect offering.
    There's a crack in everything.
    It's how the ligth gets in.
    -Isonard Cohen



MTC-00014927

From: Bill Brody--CDA Engineering, Inc.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.
    Bill Brody
    Electrical Engineer
    CDA Engineering, Inc.
    550 Stephenson Highway, Suite 310
    Troy, MI 48083
    (248) 589-3300 voice
    (248) 589-8520 fax
    [email protected] e-mail



MTC-00014928

From: Frankster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:52am
Subject: comments on ms antitrust trial
    Hi,
    I think that the proposed settlement seriously fails in a lot of 
ways. I think the most significant of these is that there is no 
requirement to disclose file formats of the office line of products.
    Microsoft Office is the de facto standard in office software. 
Therefore any software which seeks to compete must be able to read 
the MS Office file format completely and accurately. Because MS do 
not release details of the office format, anyone seeking to write a 
competing application must reverse engineer the format of the files. 
Inevitably it will not be possible to understand the format 
completely and accurately so other software products will come 
across as inferior if they fail to translate accurately, thus 
creating a barrier of entry.
    I think the remedies could be more effective if they required 
microsoft to disclose full and complete details of the file formats 
for all products.
    frankie fisher



MTC-00014929

From: Dion Mes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02  6:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    while not being an US citizen I still want to inform you about 
my ``International'' point of view. From my perspective its 
important for the US to give a strong signal to the International 
community that these kind of practices are not allowed.
    Even if it is considered to be good for US business I can only 
say that it is not good to bet on one horse. By making it difficult 
for other American companies to compete on the ICT market they can 
not expand to other countries. In the case that MS is not severly 
punished for its acts there will be a reaction from the 
International community against MS sooner or later. This will harm 
the US is a bigger way because its one company which competes on the 
International ICT market, by sharing this ICT market over more US 
companies it will be possible for the US to do more business 
Internationaly with a lot less risk.
    However I am not writing this because I think its bad for US 
business although it is, I am writing this because it should not be 
allowed for one company to be this powerfull. I think there should 
be real competition if that is inside or outside the US does not 
matter.
    MS now has the power to infiltrate and take over any market they 
wish and they will do so in the future. The first actions that they 
want to infiltrate the consumer electronics market have already 
started (Xbox). If the US wants a healthy economic state they should 
not allow for a company to be so powerfull.
    Greetings,
    Dion Mes



MTC-00014930

From: Noonan, David (SCH)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As punishment Microsoft gets to train kids on using their 
software?
    They also get to determine the value of the ``donated'' 
software? This is a really bad idea. Even the DOJ doesn't seem to 
like it.
    *The DOJ's settlement was brokered by Bush administration 
appointee Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, head of the 
DOJ's antitrust division. But career officials at the Justice 
Department, who had pursued the case since the beginning, displayed 
their apparent displeasure with the agreement by not signing it.
    Regards,
    Dave Noonan
    Atlanta, GA
    Network Engineer



MTC-00014932

From: Pierre Lamb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been allowed to squash other in a suitable 
replacement for its Windos products. While the free enterprise is 
paramount we must ensure that one company dosen't become a monopoly, 
our economy depends on computers. Biology has shown us that a 
diverse pool of genes reduces any effects of virui that is 
introduced.
    Pierre Lamb



MTC-00014933

From: Harris, Gerald
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  6:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am an American citizen, currently living and working in 
Germany. From my vantage, with the information available to me, the 
current PFJ has a large number of failings.
    - The new licensing program which is being offered by Microsoft 
(see the article at http://www.cio.com/archive/011502/meter.html) 
offers a substantial reduction in fees in return for the agreement 
not to install any competing software. Surely this cannot be in the 
spirit of the original judgment in this case!
    - Disclosure of SW patents protecting Windows API's is not 
required. How can a competitor know if his product infringes on a 
Microsoft patent? Competitors cannot be expected to ``give it a 
whirl'' and hope that they aren't prosecuted. Lack of disclosure 
furthers and supports the Microsoft monopoly.
    - Microsoft is allowed to retaliate against OEM's that ship PC's 
containing a competing OS and not containing Windows. Does this mean 
that OEM's will have to ship their PC's containing BOTH operating 
systems? And of course the customer is expected to pay license fees 
for both OS's--even if he didn't want Windows originally. The result 
of this will be that OEM's shipping Windows will effectively ship 
only Windows, thus effectively precluding all competition.
    This is only a very short sampling of a long list of 
shortcomings in the proposed judgement. I sincerely hope that major 
changes are made before this goes into effect.

[[Page 26020]]

    regards,
    Gerald Harris
    Leader, Software Architecture Group
    Dep. Software Development and Engineering
    Harman/Becker Automotive Systems (Becker Division) GmbH
    Im St?ckm?dle 1, 76307 Karlsbad, Germany, www.becker.de
    tel:+49(0) 7248 71 1873
    fax:+49(0) 7248 71 1368
    email:[email protected]



MTC-00014934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am personally expressing my opinion about the proposed final 
judgement in the US v. Microsoft antitrust case.
    I find it incredible that anyone could consider it ethical, let 
alone legal, to allow a convicted criminal enterprise to have a hand 
in the setting of it's terms of punishment. That is exactly what we 
have here with the proposed final judgement. Microsoft has been 
allowed to manipulate the process so much that the judgement ends up 
allowing Microsoft to further it monopoly. Example: Microsoft alone 
shall be the judge of what constitutes a ``legitimate business 
model'' with regards to licensing of API documents.
    There are numerous other ``gaping holes'' in the proposed 
judgement that others have expounded on. I am reiterating these 
concerns to you here. The proposed final judgement, if accepted in 
it's present form, will give Microsoft an unmitigated license to 
further it's monopoly and crush or otherwise harm it's competitors.
    I hereby express my opposition to the proposed final judgement 
as currently negotiated between the DOJ and Microsoft.
    Ronald R. Gage
    Owner--Linux Network Services
    527 Ruby Street
    Saginaw, Michigan 48602



MTC-00014935

From: Mace Moneta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mace Moneta, retired
    5 Micki Terrace
    Manalapan, NJ 07726



MTC-00014936

From: Mangala Sadhu Sangeet Singh Khalsa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think that the Proposed Final Judgement in this case is 
in the public interest.
    It doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems.
    It contains misleading and overly narrow definitions and 
provisions.
    It fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms currently 
used by Microsoft.
    It fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEMS.
    I hope that you will address these issue before reaching a 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Mangala Sadhu Sangeet Singh Khalsa
    510 N Guadalupe St Ste D
    Santa Fe, NM 87501



MTC-00014937

From: Mark Howard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I have read the proposed settlement and am not happy with its 
current state. In my opinion, the APIs (for windows) and Filetype 
definitions (For all files--.doc, etc.) should be completely open to 
allow all companies equal opportunity to develop applications on a 
level field. Note that I believe this is what should happen as 
standard, *not* as punishment, which should be completely seperate.
    I hope you will take this vote against the current settlement 
and consider the mentioned points.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mark Howard
    tildemh.com



MTC-00014938

From: Smith, Calvin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  6:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the current settlement is a bad idea. It definitely 
does not go far enough and will not stop or even slow Microsoft's 
anti-competitive behaviour.
    -Calvin Smith, Engineer at Digex



MTC-00014939

From: tigger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i would like to say that i have read the proposed settlement and 
am agaist it in its current form. Microsoft Competitors need to have 
more solid gaurantees for protection. I am more inclined towards the 
remedy of judge Jackson. I feel that takes a more realistic approach 
to curbing the monoploy abuses commited by Microsoft that the 
current settlement. Please consider this a vote against.
    thank you
    Reiner Peterke
    352 NE 52nd st
    seattle, WA 98105



MTC-00014940

From: Sean M. McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The microsoft settlement is bad. Do not let it go through. 
Microsoft must be punished!



MTC-00014941

From: jamie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    It lets Microsoft walk away from the harm they have done to the 
computer industry and consumers.
    Once monopolies finish with their competitors they turn on their 
customers. If their monopoly is not reined in now they will continue 
their illegal business practices to the further detriment of us all.



MTC-00014942

From: Dan Carrigan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To:
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I feel the Microsoft Antitrust Settlement is unfair to 
educational customers and does not address the negative market 
consequences of allowing Microsoft to continue it business 
practices.
    Regards,
    Dan
    Dan Carrigan
    Reference Librarian
    dcarrigan@
    antioch-college.edu
    Antioch College Olive
    Kettering Library
    937 767-1240
    795 Livermore Street
    Yellow Springs, OH 45387-1695
    ``Civility costs nothing and buys everything'' L. Montagu



MTC-00014943

From: Joris Benschop
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    I think the proposed settlement (``United States v. Microsoft 
Settlement'') is a bad idea. It will strengtehn the MS monopoly and 
will not punish this company in any way

[[Page 26021]]

    Sincerely
    Joris



MTC-00014944

From: Mark Jaroski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the court,
    I would like as a U.S. citizen to register a complaint against 
the proposed settlement with Microsoft on several simple grounds. 
The settlement would grant Microsoft the monopoly it was found 
guilty of maintaining, and in fact give it a new platform for 
marketing it's operating system, by way of the so-called punishment, 
free distribution to schools.
    As a computing professional I am appalled, and consider this 
settlement a travesty of justice.
    Please your honor, reject this settlement.
    Thank you,
    Mark Jaroski
    Senior Software Engineer
    World Health Organization
    Avenue Appia, 27
    CH-1211 Geneva
    Switzerland
    -- mark at geekhive dot net



MTC-00014945

From: Mike Centaur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    As a citizen of California, a computer programmer, and even as a 
Microsoft user, I find the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case 
to be a bad idea. I think it's incumbent upon the Federal Government 
to seek a more just disposition of the matter. Microsoft should not 
get off easy. You must push for greater concessions from Microsoft 
to ensure that computing innovation continues and that future 
generations will have greater options in the marketplace than they 
do now. We must not put all of our eggs in one basket.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Caetano
    1228 O St #104
    Sacramento, CA 95814



MTC-00014946

From: Keith Carver
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing this Email, because I believe that Microsoft has 
been let off the hook in it's current trial with the Dept. of 
Justice.
    After reading much documentation on the subject I can only come 
to one conclusion, This agreement was thrown together As fast as 
possible so both sides would be happy and the case would be closed.
    However the penalties against Microsoft need to be thought out 
more, and not just by ``Justice Dept. or Politicians''
    I would suggest that you setup a panel of Tech. Experts from 
companies such as the ones that have been at the Mercy of Microsoft 
``AOL/Redhat/OEM's'' and by regular People in the Tech. Industry 
such as ``Reporters/CEO's/Consumers''.
    In the end these people will be the ones who have to deal with 
what you decide here, since you probably won't get another Chance to 
stop this Monopoly again any time soon.
    Remember, Microsoft is great at finding loopholes/clauses in 
contracts/verdicts etc. that can allow it to continue.
    If the remedy in this case, were to benefit the computer 
Industry as we all hope, Microsoft would have never agreed To it, so 
something is still very wrong.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Carver
    ``Simple Voter From FL''



MTC-00014947

From: Michael Haertjens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I feel that it is 
overly favorable to Microsoft. Please consider this a vote against 
the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that 
is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to 
Microsoft.
    Michael Haertjens
    306 Carol Drive NE
    Palm Bay, FL 32907



MTC-00014948

From: Peter Statham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:05am
Subject: Microsoft
    I am a British Citizen and a open source programmer, however 
Microsoft is a multi-national corporation and the Microsoft trial 
was important, so I would like to say a few thing regarding it. 
Microsoft have made life hell for us for years, they have flaunted 
all important standards such as POSIX (NT's POSIX complience is not 
as complete as microsoft says), and ANSI, which make it difficult to 
write software for Windows and even more difficult to port software 
to and from other operating systems.
    Because Windows is used on 90% of all desktop computers, 
programmers must write for Windows which enforces the above 
paragraph.
    They have also used threats and bribes to prevent competition 
from producing programs superiour to their own.
    Microsoft has also repeatedly stolen ideas from other 
programmers and companies, this makes Microsoft somewhat 
hypocritical, Microsoft claim to be all for the American DMCA, yet 
they steal other people's ideas, their intellectual property, 
Microsoft call the open source movement (who give full credit to the 
programmers) a cancer, from this behaviour it would be better to 
call Microsoft the cancer. Microsoft have held back computer 
technology 10 years now, they have charged us though the nose for 
buggy software and then charged us for the bug fix.
    Please stop Microsoft, forbid them to make any software releases 
for 5 years and give us a chance to establish some new standards, 
but don't let Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist, this is more 
than a spat between rivel companies, the programmimg community were 
hoping that you would prevent Microsoft from ruining PCs anymore 
than they have done.
    Thank you.
    --Written By Stats--
    [email protected] --



MTC-00014949
From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think that the Proposed Final Judgement in this case is 
in the public interest.
    It doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems.
    It contains misleading and overly narrow definitions and 
provisions.
    It fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms currently 
used by Microsoft.
    It fails to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEMS.
    I hope that you will address these issue before reaching a 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
        1238 Upas St.
    San Diego CA 92103



MTC-00014950

From: Paul Loveridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed DOJ / Microsoft settlement is a bad idea, 
as it takes no account of the open source software movement, and 
leaves several loopholes that Microsoft are sure to exploit.
    Paul Loveridge,
    Software Engineer



MTC-00014951

From: Dan Naumov
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Naumov



MTC-00014952

From: Caton Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I write to express my concern that the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft Anti-trust case falls far short of what is necessary.
    Unless much more far-reaching--and specific--measures are 
imposed, Microsoft

[[Page 26022]]

will retain and extend its stranglehold on the market, stifling or 
absorbing any competition to its monopoly. There appear to be far 
too many loopholes in the definitions and remedies of the proposed 
settlement. I encourage you to consult closely with those who wish 
to compete with Microsoft, and determine with greater specificity 
ways in which Microsoft's behavior can be best modified.
    -c



MTC-00014953

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings
    As a small contract software developer http://www.rxtx.org, I 
would like to suggest the the current proposal undermines the 
industry I work in. I understand you get a large number of emails 
from ``anonymous industry supporters.'' Please consider the larger 
picture and support true competition in this industry by putting an 
end to the current proposal.
    Trent Jarvi
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014954

From: Benjamin Krueger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Systems Administrator of 4 years on Unix, Windows, Linux, 
and BSD systems, I wish to comment on the proposed final judgement 
in United States vs. Microsoft.
    It is my opinion that this proposed settlement fails to address 
some of the most important wrongdoing that Microsoft has committed, 
fails to prevent Microsoft from engaging in these behaviors in the 
future, and fails to punish Microsoft for the severe and irreparable 
damage they have caused to the computer software and hardware 
industries, as well as the economy of these industries.
    Please dispose of this current settlement in its entirety, as it 
fails to fulfill even the basic criteria of a fair and just 
settlement. Please consider a settlement that will appropriately 
give every opportunity to Microsoft's competitors (who currently can 
not compete) to develop products that benefit the industry and its 
consumers, rather than Microsoft.
    Thank You
    Benjamin Krueger
    320 Cedar St. Apt 216
    Seattle, WA 98121
    Independant Party Affiliation



MTC-00014955

From: jose chua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    As a software engineer, the proposed settlement will greatly 
affect my livelihood. As an American citizen, the proposed 
settlement will greatly affect my way of life, as it sets the tone 
for doing business in the new millennium. In its current state, the 
proposed settlement does not adequately address Microsoft's illegal 
actions.
    There are several loopholes. The definition of ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' (definition U) excludes other Microsoft 
Windows Operating Systems such as Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows 
CE, and PocketPC. These products are derived or are the progeny of 
the Windows codebase, and should be included. Also, any future 
upgrades, service packs and fixes should be part of the definition.
    In Section III.A.2., no provision is made for a Personal 
Computer that ships with a non-Microsoft Operating System but no 
Windows Operating System. As it stands, protection for OEMs is 
provided only if an OEM continues to bundle Microsoft products.
    In Section III.D., Microsoft is required to provide API 
documentation to ISVs at the time of the final beta test. This 
timeframe is not sufficient for ISVs to adapt their products to fit 
the requirements specified in Section III.H.3., which states that 
competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
requirements seven months before the final beta test.
    The proposed settlement is largely insufficient and does not 
serve the public interest. Please consider this a vote against the 
proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jose B. Chua
    2530 Poplar Street
    Union, New Jersey 07083



MTC-00014956

From: Thomas M. Albright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Thomas M. Albright
    49 Lucas Pond Rd.
    Northwood, NH 03261
    (603) 942-7714
    Thomas M. Albright (Linux user number 234357)
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, 
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, 
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon 
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly 
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be 
seized.



MTC-00014957

From: Andy Murren
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Having reviewed the proposed settlement I feel that it is 
seriously flawed. Having been a programmer and a systems 
administrator for several years I have seen Microsoft force 
companies out of business or to drop business lines due to their 
practices. I feel that the proposed settlement does not fully 
address these practices and prevent Microsoft from continuing them.
    Specifically there are three area that need to be rigorously 
addressed.
    1. All APIs must be fully documented and published for use 
without restriction, by anyone include competitors. The definition 
of an API must be very broadly stated. They should be published 
before the product is released for public beta testing, or 120 days 
prior to sale of the product, which ever is earlier. Also, all 
changes must be published in a timely manner when updates, patches 
and revisions are released.
    2. All file formats must be fully documented and published for 
use without restriction, by anyone include competitors. The time 
frames should be the same as above.
    3. Licensing and sales incentive practices of Microsoft are 
anticompetitive and need to be changed. Microsoft should be brought 
into line with industry standard practices and not allowed to use 
its market share and power to cripple competition and drain money 
from consumers and companies.
    These terms should remain in effect until Microsoft has less 
than 49% of market share.
    So long as Microsoft can prevent competition by using its 
dominate market position it will continue to harm the American 
economy. By not allowing competitors (both commercial and Open 
Source) to write compatible software, Microsoft will remain a 
monopoly. This proposed settlement does not address the short or 
long term changes needed to end the Microsoft Monopoly.
    Andrew J. Murren
    Mendham, NJ
    Andy Murren
    [email protected]



MTC-00014958

From: Ed Figarsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is an injustice. I 
believe the company should have separated into two, if not three 
pieces: Operating Systems, Server Software, and Everything Else 
(Productivity Software). I think Microsoft's ploy of offering to 
flood schools with their products is ridiculous. (A decade or so ago 
Bill Gates was noticed because of his large charitable donation--of 
outdated software, not money. No one saw the irony in that?)
    As a software developer, I feel that Microsoft goes against all 
the principles of best practice and fair play. the world would be a 
better place without them.
    Sincerly,
    Edward Figarsky
    384 Lower Holland Road
    Holland, PA



MTC-00014959

From: m h
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26023]]

Date: 1/23/02  7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir,
    I would like to register my vote agains the current settlement. 
I do not it goes far enough in opening up the monopoly. Other 
companies, need more information from Microsoft. for example, 
windows developers need to know about the exact details of the 
windows API, presented in a useful way, so that microsoft is not the 
only one able to take advantage of the lesser-known features.
    howama
    [email protected]



MTC-00014960

From: St-Pierre, Daniel
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    I think that the best way to restore competition on the desktop 
would be to force Microsoft to do only two things:
    1. Release all documentation relating the formats of their MS 
Office documents.
    2. And probably the most important; have them release all 
network communication APIs so that other companies can create 
products able to communicate and interoperate with Microsoft 
Products.
    Also have them document and release any changes at least 3 
months ahead of releasing new products or updates.
    Thank you.



MTC-00014961

From: Corey Frank
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  7:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until 
its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, 
assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This must be 
true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time
    Corey J. Frank
    38472 Casselberry Ct
    North Branch MN 55056



MTC-00014962

From: Peter Hartzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings--
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I think this 
settlement is a very bad idea. In general, the settlement goes too 
far to protect Microsoft; it would allow them to effectively protect 
and extend their monopoly.
    In particular, the settlement does not address the single most 
powerful hold which Microsoft exerts on the market; to wit: document 
standards.
    Additionally, the small provision for publishing 
interoperability standards is quite weak. I have no doubt that 
Microsoft will be able to circumvent any such restrictions.
    I hope the U.S Department of Justice will reject the proposed 
settlement. To do otherwise would be disservice to the future of our 
country.
    Respectfully Yours,
    Peter Hartzler
    2907 Madison Place
    Falls Church, VA 22042
    (703) 534-6537
    [email protected]>



MTC-00014963

From: Robert Grabowsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a United States citizen with about 16 years experience in 
the computer industry. I am a computer professional and my 
livelyhood depends on happens in the US vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. I have read the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor of 
it in its current state.
    Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as 
well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to 
Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft. I believe the 
proposal is a dishonest one that sells out the public interest. I 
will explain why, and offer some guidelines for a fairer remedy.
    1. Microsoft's main crime (not bundling, but the prevention of 
bundling) has had lasting anti-competitive effects that the 
settlement should address but doesn't. What Microsoft did that 
seriously disadvantaged the consumer was not so much bundling its 
own browser with its operating system, but preventing computer 
resellers (OEMs) from offering consumers a choice by bundling 
competing browsers such as Netscape Navigator.
    2. Microsoft's monopoly profits are the direct result of these 
and other illegally anti-competitive tactics. The antitrust case 
established that the absence of competition emboldened Microsoft 
into charging $89 for Windows instead of $49. In other words, 
consumers paid extra merely because of a monopoly that was being 
illegally maintained. There is absolutely nothing in the proposed 
settlement that addresses the issue of these ill-gotten gains, or 
how these will be reimbursed to the public from whose pockets they 
came. This simple omission easily amounts to billions of dollars, 
and by itself makes the settlement a sellout of the public interest, 
even without an assessment of its other shortcomings.
    3. Though it has been established that Microsoft has repeatedly 
broken the law, the settlement only defines mechanisms to prevent 
future wrongdoing. What about punishment for past wrongdoing? 
Guidelines for a fair remedy:
    1. Recurrence: Microsoft must not be able to continue to abuse 
its monopoly the way it has in the past.
    2. Reimbursement: Microsoft has no right to retain the excess 
profits it has earned as a result of its illegal actions. This money 
should be repaid to the consumer.
    3. Reparations: As Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications, 
it must underwrite efforts to restore competition and consumer 
choice. The rest of the market should not have to pay to recover 
from Microsoft's abuses.
    4. Reference: Microsoft must pay punitive damages over and above 
its reimbursement and reparations obligations, to serve as a warning 
to deter future monopolists. The remedy must in no case send out a 
signal that a large enough violator can get off lightly. Future tax 
dollars can be saved by discouraging abuses instead of having to 
prosecute them.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Grabowsky



MTC-00014964

From: bob noob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00014965

From: Frank Field
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington,DC, 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to add my voice to the others OPPOSED to the 
proposed settlement of the

[[Page 26024]]

Microsoft antitrust suit. As currently constituted, this settlement 
fails to establish a basis for competition in the marketplace for PC 
software. More importantly, elements of the language suggest that 
the settlement will allow Microsoft to employ several predatory 
practices to illegally defend its market share--to wit, the apparent 
limitation of the various ``openness'' decrees to commercial 
concerns only.
    The Open Source software community has demonstrated startling 
innovation in the face of past predatory behavior by the defendent 
in this case, largely through the open standards that have been 
developed by that community. The consent decree does nothing to 
restrict Microsoft's ``embrace and extend'' strategy, which will 
cripple innovation in the very sector that our economy depends upon 
for its success today.
    Becasue of this and other well-documented elements of the 
proposed settlement which fail to ensure a competitive market, I 
strongly resist the terms of the current settlement, and implore the 
Department of Justice to reopen the settlement talks.
    Frank R. Field, III
    Materials Systems Laboratory
    Senior Research Associate, MIT CTPID
    Associate Director of Education, TPP
    Tel: 617-253-2146; Fax: 617-258-7471
    e-mail: [email protected]
    URL: http://msl1.mit.edu/
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00014966

From: Richard Glanmark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Its a bad idea to make a settlement. Microsoft is clearly a 
monopoly and should therefor be split up to open up competition. 
Competition is good for customers as we all know.
    Regards,
    Richard Glanmark
    Richard Glanmark B l u e f i s h
    [email protected] fax +46 8 731 80 10
    tel +46 709 472 153 icq 33836596
    Hjlp mig fixa min fest! http://fixafest.nu



MTC-00014967

From: Claude A. Keswani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement would not remedy Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices and that Microsoft's behavior will 
eventually cripple innovation in the software industry.
    Claude Keswani
    758 East Third St.
    South Boston, MA 02127
    617.269.0387



MTC-00014968

From: Andrew
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is an extreamly bad idea.
    Andrew Laughton



MTC-00014969

From: Needham, Douglas
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In reviewing the findings of the court that have been un-
refuted. I don't think that settling with Microsoft is in the 
overall best interest to me as a consumer or my company. Microsoft 
has been found guilty of being a monopoly, and have absolutely no 
respect for the judicial system in america. They have time and again 
scoffed at any ``terms'' that they had to live by. The release of XP 
with all of its bundling has shown that they have no intention of 
changing their ways.
    Please do not settle with a guilty company that will not change 
its ways unless changed by force.
    The saying goes speak softly but carry a big stick.
    If you always speak softly and never use your big stick then 
what is the point of having it?
    Please do not settle with Microsoft. They need to be punished in 
such a way that they will not continue their behavior.
    I am forced to write you this not from outlook on a Windows 2000 
machine. This is not my choice but the choice of my company.
    My company chose Microsoft products not because they were the 
best but because they felt they do not have a choice. Please, punish 
Microsoft now in a way that allows my company to actually believe it 
is safe to find an alternative email system without fear that they 
will be crushed by Microsoft.
    Doug Needham
    Lockheed Martin Mission Systems
    Bldg 102/G70
    9255 Wellington Road
    Manassas, VA 20110-4121
    (703) 367-1563
    FAX (703)367-6574



MTC-00014970

From: Adam Schreiber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is but a wrist 
slap for a company like Microsoft. The American people deserve a 
better settlement.
    Adam Schreiber



MTC-00014971

From: Woodraska, Robert J.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Many smarter people than me have already written comments on the 
Proposed Final Judgement I am sure, but I thought I would add my two 
cents. Microsoft has already been proven to introduce deliberate 
incompatibilities to maintain their hold on different platforms, as 
evidenced by the 1996 Caldera vs. Microsoft lawsuit. The proposed 
remedies are far too weak to prevent Microsoft from doing this in 
the future. In a sense, the Proposed Final Judgement would rely on 
the willingness of Microsoft to open up to competition, and their 
track record seems to indicate that this is unlikely. Many 
definitions, such as API are worded in such a poor manner as to give 
Microsoft more of an advantage legally than they already enjoy. The 
Proposed Final Judgement should be overhauled (perhaps rewritten 
from scratch) or rejected. Thank you for your time.
    BoB Woodraska
    IB Systems Administrator
    PCS
    (605) 362-1260



MTC-00014972

From: Chris Kaczor
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the settlement.



MTC-00014973

From: Mike
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please don't let Microsoft get away with their crimes once 
again. The last DOJ anti-trust settlement with them was a wrist 
slap. That's what this new one is shaping up to be as well. The 
settlement is a joke, allowing them to get away with their abusive 
practices without any real penalties.
    As written, the settlement has too many holes in it, which will 
allow Gates & Company to continue their arrogant practices. The 
remedies only protect commercial companies. What about Linux? The 
biggest competitors to Microsoft are not-for-profit organizations, 
which aren't covered in the scope of this ludicrous settlement!! 
Section III(J)(2) pretty much rules out not-for-profit organizations 
from getting any benefit at all from this settlement, and indeed 
allows Microsoft to ignore them, not providing them with API's, 
documentation or comm protocols.
    PLEASE PUNISH MICROSOFT!! You won the trial, for crying out 
loud. Now you're going to let them off the hook?
    I urge you to throw out this pro-Microsoft settlement, and come 
up with something that is strong enough to STOP them from behaving 
the way they do, and something that has some punitive measures in 
it!!
    Mike Whitney
    Systems Analyst/Programmer
    Austin, TX



MTC-00014974

From: Chuck Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:18am
Subject: current case
    I believe that the current proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
case is a bad idea.
    Charles Mason



MTC-00014975

From: Kevin Swearingen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly feel that the lack of enforcement of terms will 
result in a lack of enthusiasm by Microsoft to comply with the terms 
of the proposed settlement.
    I strongly feel that the PFJ requirement for MS to release API 
documentation to ISVs is poorly defined and inadequate. I feel that 
API is too narrowly defined.

[[Page 26025]]

    I strongly feel that most of the conditions and requirements of 
this settlement are inadequate and will be ineffective in modifying 
in Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.
    Kevin Swearingen



MTC-00014976

From: scott j lopez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is truly a shame. 
Microsoft has let its influence and its money buy their way out of 
punishment for the crimes they committed. Is the government ``by the 
people for the people'' or ``by the people for the highest bidder?''
    Please count me among the growing number of US Citizens who are 
unhappy, disappointed and dissatisfied with the ``justice'' brought 
against Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Scott J. Lopez



MTC-00014977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Microsoft keeps saying that they have competitors (namely Open 
Source Linux). But the settlement completey excludes them from using 
any of the information the settlement forces them to disclose.
    Not only will open source projects not fit the guidelines of who 
Microsoft is forced to disclose the information too. The release of 
the protocols without the security information makes them completely 
useless because if you can't authenticate, you can't use the 
protocols!
    Microsoft needs to be forced to open up their protocols and 
interchange formats to others in order to really level the playing 
field. The Microsoft Word document is one example. They have such a 
lock on the market of word processors just because they are the 
defacto standard. Microsoft uses these formats to force their 
customers to upgrade office on an almost yearly basis. Most people I 
talk to upgrade office because they want to be able to read new 
word/excel documents--not because office provides any new amazing 
features that they really want. Microsoft uses these formats as 
extortion to keep businesses and people upgrading their products. I 
know, because I'm a programmer, that Microsoft could create a new 
word document format that is still able to be opened with previous 
word processors. This is exactly how the HTML/XML formats work. But 
they choose to not do that.
    Microsoft also uses changes in their word document format to 
keep other word processors from ever being able to compete with 
them. In the industry today, if you can't open a word document, your 
word processor is useless.
    If you were to force Microsoft to open ALL protocols, formats 
(including word, excel, powerpoint, networking protocols, asf, 
windows media, etc formats) then you would go a great distance 
towards leveling the playing fields.
    As a technical expert, looking at the current proposal is just 
disghusting. It's almost like you let Microsoft write it themselves!
    Brian Hayward



MTC-00014978

From: Justin Kao
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to state that I feel the current proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is insufficient.
    In particular:
    1. Section III.J.2 exempts Microsoft from disclosing information 
about authentication and authorization to third parties that 
Microsoft does not judge to be businesses. This leaves out ALL open-
source projects such as Apache, Samba, Wine, etc. which are 
developed by volunteers yet provide the vast majority of the 
available alternatives to Microsoft software! Essentially then, this 
settlement allows Microsoft to continue its anti-competitive 
practices against its largest competitors.
    2. The settlement seems to do little with regards to fixing the 
results of past anti-competitive practices by Microsoft, namely the 
domination of Microsoft Office, Internet Explorer, Exchange, and 
other products. In addition to placing restraints on future 
behavior, the settlement should do something about the current 
monopoly. A good start would be to require openly documented file 
formats for Microsoft Office and openly documented protocols for 
communicating with Microsoft Exchange.
    Thank you.
    Justin Kao
    Caltech MSC 301
    Pasadena CA 91126
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.--Benjamin 
Franklin



MTC-00014979

From: Richard Lawson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Although the following text is not my own, it adequately 
summarizes my negative feelings towards the proposed Microsoft 
settlement and is reproduced with permission of the author:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Richard Lawson



MTC-00014980

From: Jeff Pitman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Before the public commentary period expires, I would like to, as 
a U.S. citizen, state my concern about the Microsoft Proposed 
Settlement. In your settlement, you leave what appears to be many 
loopholes that can allow Microsoft to continue to practice anti-
competition in its current markets.
    Two points I would like to make:
    1. You fail to consider--if it is possible--markets that 
Microsoft has entered that do not include its operating systems 
divisions. Microsoft has exerted undue influence on markets 
including peripheral hardware, gaming machines, handheld devices 
(software), etc. Although you speak about IHVs, I think the hardware 
aspect of the settlement needs to be fully explained and clarified.
    2. The discussion about versioning is rediculously open to 
interpretation and further work around by Microsoft. You talk of 
Major revisions being whole numbered and Minor revision being 
numbers followed by the decimal. However, did you ever fathom that 
they could use a different versioning scheme. Windows 2000 ring a 
bell? Although it has a 5.00 version. What if they move to another 
scheme? What provisions does this settlement provide to cover this 
loophole?
    Lastly, I would like to thank you for your efforts in inacting 
these restrictions on Microsoft. I feel that they've gone too long 
under pretenses of unfair competition.
    If you need to verify my citizenship:
    Jeff Pitman
    c/o Robert Pitman
    2631 NE Laura St
    Hillsboro, OR 97124
    (503) 844-7227
    Thank you,
    jeff pitman
    support engineer
    brooks automation pls/bu
    +886-953-275-447



MTC-00014981

From: Lynn Crumbling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have read over the proposed Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT 
in favor of it, in its current state. The settlement does not, in 
any way, penalize Microsoft for its past

[[Page 26026]]

infringements of the law. For many years, OEMs have been under 
control of this corporation, and simply ``formalizing'' this law in 
a document is not enough. Microsoft has been declared guilty of past 
wrongs, and must now be held accountable in some measure. The 
current proposed settlement is unacceptable. Thank you for your 
time.
    Sincerely,
    Lynn M. Crumbling
    549 Hillcrest Rd.
    York, PA 17403



MTC-00014982

From: Tom Coady
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea
    best wishes,
    Tom



MTC-00014983

From: Jason Zawacki
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement will force Microsoft to 
turn to anti-competitive practices in order to sell their software. 
This case has been absolutely infuriating how Microsoft can put the 
same smokescreen (marketing) in front of the courts as it does to 
the general public. ``Freedom to innovate'', how, by limiting 
consumers so that all paths flow through Microsoft?
    Some examples--
    OEM deals where Windows must be installed on all new computers, 
and that no other alternative is allowed.
    Consumers cannot request that a different OS (or no OS) be 
installed, and are automatically charged for the Windows license. 
How is this not anti-competitive?
    Windows XP--which is an operating system that brings MS a giant 
step closer to having complete integration with MSN, with no other 
alternatives--can you replace MSN with AOL and get the same 
integration? No?
    Then it should be a separate product NOT integrated with XP. 
This would give AOL (and any other similar business) a fair chance 
at attracting customers, where MS would have to market their merits 
of MSN vs AOL rather than winning by default.
    Active Directory--The LDAP protocol is perfectly capable of 
handling anything AD can handle. But does MS use LDAP (an open 
standard?) NO. It takes it, modifies it slightly so that all Windows 
installations MUST use AD and not LDAP. This increases the realiance 
on Windows OS as well as AD products from Microsoft. 3rd parties 
have been effectively cut out of providing an alternative to AD. 
Yes, there is Novell, but Windows will never be as tightly 
integrated with Novell than it is with AD. So, once you've decided 
you like the features that AD provides, you have NO CHOICE but to go 
with an all Microsft solution. How is this not anti-competitive?
    Why must Windows update be run using Internet Explorer, and can 
never be run by any other browser?
    (Since IE is supposed to be JustAnotherBrowser) Why can't we use 
Netscape, or Opera to do the same thing?
    In terms of security, it would be MUCH better if Microsoft was 
broken up. This would encourage LESS tightly integrated products, 
which have been the main cause of almost all of the major virus 
outbreaks and worms in the past year. The excuse Microsoft likes to 
use is that they are the biggest target, so people who want to cause 
damage are naturally going to go after them. This argument is flawed 
since the Apache webserver has nearly DOUBLE the marketshare of IIS 
(http://www.netcraft.com/survey/), and IIS is what has been the main 
target of those worms. Using MS's logic, if hackers wanted to cause 
the most harm, they'd target Apache and not IIS. So why have they 
targetted IIS? Because it is full of security holes, where Apache is 
not. IIS is the easiest target simply because of that, it is easy to 
exploit. Apache is an open source product which is open to peer 
review, where IIS is not. Coincidence?
    And now look at their plans with the X-Box--All in one media 
center for the home, directly tied into MSN.
    Passport--one stop personal info database (which has already 
been hacked into once). Potentially one of the most valuable 
databases ever created, call controlled by one essentially 
unregulated, company, Microsoft, who has a horrible security record.
    Microsoft is continuing to make the US court system look foolish 
(at best) by brazenly ignoring warnings, continuing to tighten their 
stranglehold on the US business place while this case has been 
ongoing. Is this how the court system is supposed to work? Bend over 
backwards for companies that break the laws over because it is more 
convenient? Microsoft is at the forefront of changing this country 
into an Orwellian society (if you think I am exagerrating, then just 
look at the key positions Big Brother Microsoft has in the media 
today, and realize that the direction they are headed is to force 
all roads to lead to Microsoft.) If you think that they do not have 
the money and power to do this, then you do not realize the 
importance of this Anti-trust case.
    Jason Zawacki



MTC-00014984

From: Jemaleddin S. Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've read through the conditions of the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, and I find that it's a bad idea. It gives nothing to 
those harmed by Microsoft's flagrant violations of antitrust law (as 
defined Judge Jackson's finding of facts), it provides no 
remuneration to the public, and it does nothing to hamper further 
violations of antitrust law. Microsoft has shown time after time in 
court that their attitude to the law is one of flagrant disregard, 
if not merely flippancy. There is nothing in the settlement that 
will change their behavior, and to my mind a slap on the wrist such 
as this will merely encourage them to proceed in driving other 
businesses to extinction through anti- competitive practices. Jemal



MTC-00014985

From: Ross Lippert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with MSFT is a very bad idea. 
They have stiffled many innovations.
    There is no point is developing new applications for popular 
computers while they are calling the shots, keeping API's closed, 
forcing OEM's to load their products, giving selective discounts to 
OEM's, and the most pervasive, engaging in gratuitous product 
tieing.
    r



MTC-00014986

From: OBrien Andrew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the process and say that the 
Microsoft Settlement, as currently structured, is a bad idea.
    Andrew P. O'Brien
    1619 Dauphin Ave.
    Wyomissing, PA 19610



MTC-00014987

From: Dimi Shahbaz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time
    Dimi Shahbaz



MTC-00014988

From: Zero Sum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement neither makes up for past sins nor 
discourages current and future transgressions.
    Justice must be seen to be done and this ``settlement'' could 
only be seen as an ominous traversty.
    There must be scope for competition. Standards must be 
publiscised and used.

[[Page 26027]]

    Geoff Marshall



MTC-00014989

From: mconway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:24am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    i believe the DOJ settlement proposed with microsoft in 
inadequate and does not address their abuses.



MTC-00014990

From: Anuj Arora
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is a easy (and, pardon my saying so, 
lame) way for microsoft to buy their way out.
    given the quality of their products (windows . . . anything) and 
the supressive-ness of their licensing schemes, this is neither 
right, nor fair to anyone. 
    ~A



MTC-00014991

From: Casey McEnaney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Casey McEnaney and I live in Oregon City, OR. I would 
like to take this moment to say that I believe that the proposed 
settlement is a very bad idea, and I believe that it will only serve 
as fodder for the company's reputation of anti-competitive and anti-
consumer practices going into the future.
    Thank you,
    Casey



MTC-00014992

From: Pohlabel, Christian A, SOBUS
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my opinions regarding the propopsed 
judgement against Microsoft, in the ongoing anti-trust case. From 
what I have seen, the PFJ does not even begin to address the harm 
already caused, let alone preventing Microsoft from doing any 
further damage to their competition in the software arena.
    I am a computer professional, and I've worked in this field for 
8 years. In my career, I have worked extensively with the end-users 
of computer systems, answering their computer-related questions and 
helping them to resolve their computer problems. I also hold an M.S. 
in Information and Communication Sciences. As a result of these 
things, I have a strong, practical background on which to base my 
opinions, as well as an understanding of the business theories 
underlying competition in the technical arena.
    In my opinion, the most serious threat to competition is 
Microsoft's control of their applied programming interfaces (APIs), 
and their absolute refusal to allow any other operating system to 
make use of these APIs. The use of these APIs is required for any 
competing operating system which hopes to be able to run software 
originally designed for Microsoft operating systems. At present, 
Microsoft controls the software market because of the lock-in 
designed into their products, each product reinforcing their main 
product: Windows.
    For example: a friend sends me a Microsoft Word document. To use 
this, I not only must have Microsoft Word (the same version), but 
also a Microsoft operating system on which to run Word. If I choose 
not to buy any Microsoft operating systems, I am unable to read 
documents created by Microsoft Word, even if I purchase that program 
separately! If the APIs required to run Word were publicly 
available, on the other hand, competitors could produce an emulator 
which would let me run Word on a different operating system 
(FreeBSD, for example, or Linux).
    The PFJ does not address this need in an adequate fashion. The 
way in which APIs are defined makes it far too easy for Microsoft to 
completely ignore this requirement, and continue making it 
impossible for anyone to run a Microsoft product without the 
Microsoft operating system. Until the APIs are opened up to 
competitors, Microsoft will continue to be a monopoly. Once other 
operating systems can run MS Word, or MS Excel, however, competition 
will begin to creep into market, and consumers will ultimately 
benefit. To illustrate this with a similar case: if Intel had been 
allowed to prevent other chip manufacturers from running programs 
written for the Intel platform, AMD chips would not exist, and 
without competition between the two CPU makers, computer speeds 
would be far lower than they are today. Finally, please note from my 
email address that I am an AT&T employee. When AT&T was judged a 
monopoly in 1982, the company was split apart (a far more drastic 
step than the one proposed in the PFJ against Microsoft). The result 
of this has been strong competition in the long distance markets, 
where a monopoly could no longer be sustained by the stable customer 
base of the local carriers. In the local markets, however, because 
the decision in 1982 and the Telecom Act of 1996 were either overly 
lenient or not sufficiently enforced, Verizon, US West (now Qwest) 
and Bell South have retained effective monopolies in their regions. 
I believe that the steps taken against Microsoft should be designed 
to not only remedy the software giant's current monopoly, but also 
to prevent it from being able to easily re-establish one in the 
future. By making Microsoft's APIs public-domain property, MS would 
be forced to focus on providing a good product to win customers 
rather than relying on lock-in due to their existing position. If 
any existing Microsoft customer could freely migrate to a new 
operating system and continue to use their old Microsoft software, 
it will solve the major problem that many CLECs faced when trying to 
compete against the Baby Bells.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this, and if you have any 
questions, please let me know.
    Chris Pohlabel



MTC-00014993

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea and not in the 
public's best interest. It does very little to stop Microsoft from 
continuing its anti-competitive business practices.
    Any questions or comments, please let me know.
    Thanks,
    Greg Panula
    Network Security Guru
    Dolan Information Inc
    612-215-8312



MTC-00014994

From: Greg Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a non-current resident of the USA; I may or may not be a 
member of the ``public'' under the terms of the act, but I am a 
consumer of and implementor of Microsoft products.
    I do see a problem with (III)D. Notably, Microsoft is only 
required to disclose APIs and documentation in order to support 
interoperation, and only to IAP, ICP, ISV etc. organisations.
    There are two problems here: --generic systems implementors (who 
do not sell hardware and do not write their own programs) are ``out 
on a limb''. This constitutes a large number of the smaller 
consulting firms in the USA, in Australia and in most other 
countries. Such documentation of APIs and protocols is necessary and 
needed in order to help such companies install and configure ISV 
products, for example.
    --the wording allows Microsoft to place restrictions on how the 
IAPs, ICPs, ISVs, etc. may use the information. For example, nothing 
prevents Microsoft from (for example) allowing access to the MSDN 
only to users who promise total secrecy (or only to those who pay 
large amounts of money). To continue ad absurdum, Microsoft could 
choose to make available the APIs to anyone willing to pay the 
billion-dollar-per-year fees for accessing the appropriate part of 
MSDN--i.e. exactly the same situation as exists at the moment.
    My suggestion to improve (III)D would be
    ``Starting at the earlier of Service Pack 1 for Windows XP or 12 
months after the submission of this Final Judgement to the Court, 
Microsoft shall disclose documentation and APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware to interoperate with the Windows Operating System 
Product. Such information will be made available in a free and 
unrestricted fashion to any individuals or organisations who request 
it, explicitly including their right to disclose it to other 
parties.''
    This above clause would bring Microsoft's development practices 
more in line with other software vendor's, such as Apple, IBM, 
Hewlett-Packard and the open source movements and would help redress 
the abuses of power that Microsoft have performed in the past.
    Regards,
    Greg Baker
    The Institute for Open Systems Technologies
    Email: [email protected]

[[Page 26028]]



MTC-00014995

From: Tiberiu Atudorei
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is bad. . . no way



MTC-00014996

From: Christoph Henrici
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    i think the Microsoft Settlement is still a very long way away 
from a truely competative consumer, customer and citizen oriented 
market agreement, which we deserve. I am against the Microsoft 
Settlement, because it is essentially in the long run not consumer 
friendly. It's does not adress the basic and princple right of a 
citizen of the USA: having the ablility to choose and also being 
able change his choice. The settlement potentially makes Microsoft's 
control of the market even stronger, which it has gained through 
different illegal practices over many years. And this in one of the 
most essential technicology fields today, which plays a crucial role 
in the evolution of the free world, which we are fighting for. The 
adequation is simple: How many Microsoft based desktops are being 
used today in comparison to competitors. Are there any real 
competitors? Is this the freedom of choice, which is so crucial for 
the functioning of the leading democracy of the world? Also there is 
a very strong threat, that Microsoft will not only dictate the 
desktop of USA, but also the server side of the market (ISP, ASP 
etc.) and the consumer market (PDA, Game consoles). So essentially 
Microsoft has put itself in the position to potentially dicate all 
essential aspects of the crucial technicologies of our time, through 
breaking the law of our country. The settlement basically 
sanctionizes this. And this scares me being a humble citizen of our 
country.
    Kind regards
    Christoph Henrici
    Im Bungert 10
    CH-8306 Br ttisellen
    Switzerland



MTC-00014997

From: Adam Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I feel that the proposed final judgement in the Microsoft anti-
trust case is not sufficient to remedy the problem and should be 
redrafted. I am a software developer, and I am forced to use 
Microsoft tools and operating systems, as my customers all use this 
operating system. It is not possible for me to develop for my 
customers using any tools other than those provided by Microsoft, as 
they will not function properly on the Windows Operating System.
    Steps must be taken to dismantle this monopoly of the operating 
system, and to make development for the Microsoft Operating Systems 
possible using tools and operating systems not provided by 
Microsoft.
    There are two methods that I feel may properly remedy this 
situation. The first is to create an equal playing ground for 
developers by making the source code for all Microsoft Operating 
Systems available to developers. Microsoft would no longer be able 
to take advantage of insider knowledge of the operating systems to 
unfairly compete with third party products.
    The second remedy would be to seperate the operating system 
business units from the application business units. Microsoft 
continues to build applications that were once independent programs 
into the operating system, making competition with these programs 
all but impossible. A very good example is with Internet Explorer, 
but some highly overlooked examples are Windows Media Player, 
Notepad, WordPad, Calculater, and all of the tools which come 
bundled with the operating system. Microsoft can afford to give 
these products away for free as they are profiting from the sale of 
the Operating System. Competing software developers do not have this 
resource. By seperating the two business units, Microsoft 
applications will be forced to compete on a somewhat more even 
playing ground.
    In conclusion, I feel that the proposed final judgement in the 
Microsoft Anti-Trust case is not sufficient to solve the problem.
    Thank You,
    Adam Jones
    14065 Ashlake Lane
    Fishers, IN 46038



MTC-00014998

From: Jim Burneff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would just like to say that I have examined the proposed 
settlement as put forth by the Department of Justice, and I am not 
in favor of it in its present condition. Please consider this a vote 
against the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a decision 
that is more beneficial to Microsoft's customers and competitors, 
yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    D. James Burneff
    1508 Emerald Lakes Blvd.
    Powell, Ohio 43065



MTC-00014999

From: [email protected] @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing because I am very concerned about the current 
Microsoft settlement. I find it to be wholly inadequate and does 
very little to curb Microsoft's continued illegal use of it monopoly 
power. There are many problems with this settlement. The definition 
of API is too narrow. Many of the other proposed items are so 
restricted that they won't even apply to future versions of Windows 
based on Microsoft's already stated intent.
    I urge that this proposed settlement be rejected and something 
far stronger be put in place.
    Thanks for your time,
    Sean McCune
    President, Red Hand Software, Inc.
    mailto:[email protected]
    2709 Pearl Street
    Natrona Heights, PA 15065



MTC-00015000

From: Heidi Shanklin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is too little, too late. Do not let 
them do this.
    Heidi Shanklin
    Portland, OR 97209



MTC-00015001

From: David HM Spector
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:33am
Subject: re: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I would like to express my dismay at what seems to be the 
Deparment of Justice's lack of seriousness with regard to the 
prosecution of and penalties to be applied to Microsoft Corporation 
for their blantant, repeated and un-repentant violations of our 
country's anti-trust laws. As an American citizen, and an 
independant software developer, my business has been immesurably 
hurt by the preadtory and illegal practices of Microsoft. If our 
country is to succeed economically in the 21st century it will be 
through innovation in Information Technologies.
    That economic success and those future innovations are dependant 
upon a vibrant economy of ideas and products where companies compete 
on a level playing field and where Microsoft cannot though the force 
of its market presence suffocate anyone who might threaten their 
market share or where innovations are stolen and livelihoods 
destroyed to line the pockets of unrestrained monopolists.
    I hope the US Government will ``do the right thing'' and apply 
the harshest possible penalties to Microsoft. The future is 
depending on it.
    respectfully,
    David HM Spector
    Present & CEO
    Really Fast Systems, LLC
    David HM Spector
    President & CEO
    Really Fast Systems, LLC
    [email protected]/[email protected]
    voice: +1 631.261.5013
    Fax: +1 631.262.7497
    Supercomputer performance to get the job done.
    Commodity pricing to make it affordable.



MTC-00015002

From: Graham Cruickshanks
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state.
    Please consider this a vote against the current settlement, as 
well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to

[[Page 26029]]

Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    I believe Microsoft has hurt the worlds software market, and 
should be split into Operating systems, and Middleware (Office, SQL 
server etc)
    I also believe Internet Explorer should be open sourced, As It 
destroyed Netscape's browser illegally.
    I also believe ``ALL'' the API's and protocols that Microsoft's 
software uses between its client and server should be documented and 
published. So other operating system can be clients and servers. 
i.e. Sun's Solaris, Red Hat Linux.
    I also think that the latest version of Java should be bundle 
with the operating system, As they illegally tried to brake Java as 
a standard. Also they should be fined in the 10's of billions, and 
that cash used for a worthy cause. I would love to see that the 
money was used to find a cure to cancer.
    Regards
    Graham Cruickshanks
    Technical Director
    ItsNotRocketScience
    64 Waterloo Street
    Glasgow
    Tel. +44 141 572 8800
    Fax. +44 141 572 8810
    http://www.itsnotrocketscience.com
    [email protected]



MTC-00015003

From: Jesse L. Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement hello, I am a simple person.
    I say this because I'm not a computer expert. I'm a college 
student. I'm a student who, because of the college
    I attend, am forced to use Microsoft products. I personally 
think that Microsoft is a threat to not only the American people, 
but the world at large. Their anti-competitive practices has killed 
more than their share of competitors. When I was in high school, I 
got my first computer. I also for the first time had access to the 
internet. I used WordPerfect by Corel (killed by office) to write my 
first web page, which was written to work well in Netscape (killed 
by IE). I bring this up because these are two examples of an 
instance where I personally was affected by Microsoft. Both of these 
programs had great futures, but Microsoft's greed cut them short.
    I've noticed that even the less computer savvy users are 
starting to notice that Microsoft has gone too far.
    however, I noticed most are apathetic towards the thought of 
doing anything about it. So I've decided to throw in my two cents.
    Short of complete dissolution, Microsoft will always be a threat 
due to the amount of wealth they've amassed. They'll always be able 
to buy less than honest politicians. They'll outlast or stall past 
different presidencies until they find one to their liking. I 
believe that the best alternative is to knock the company down from 
it's pedestal would be the best course of action. How?
    (1). break them into 3 or more smaller companies.
    (2). force them to open current and future API's (how the 
programs talk together)
    (3). force them to make current and future formats open.
    The third one is most important to me. each version of Word has 
used a different saving format, making it impossible for competitors 
to keep up.
    To backtrack a little to how Microsoft could hurt the public, 
Security is one of the first things to come to mind. there are more 
virii written for Microsoft office than any other single application 
I can think of.
    Microsoft's code is so buggy that even their ``upgraded'' 
version of a sound player is a security risk. Even our own 
government is writing virii (magic lantern) for the windows OS 
family.
    No one is invincible: Microsoft shouldn't be either.
    now's your chance to stop them.
    Please put them in their place or they WILL replace our 
government with a digital dictatorship that has more power than any 
one government. as is, the already set more standards that we 
realize, and have more economical and political power than any one 
person will ever will.
    Sincerely,
    Jesse Morgan



MTC-00015004

From: Thomas and Denise Caudron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:33am
Subject: The MS Settlement Talks
    As a member of the Information Technology community, an 
experienced programmer, a Microsoft-Certified Systems Engineer, and 
a voter, I ask that you seriously reconsider /any/ deal with 
Microsoft that does not substantially limit Microsoft's overwhelming 
influence in the industry. While I can appreciate that Microsoft 
must seek profit to satisfy its shareholders'' interests, I have 
seen all too many good technologies sit unused becuase Microsoft 
employed unreasonable and illegal practices to leverage its current 
monopoly of the operating system to create new monopolies in other 
areas (C.f., the Microsoft Office suite, the Browser, etc. . . ) and 
against its competitors (C.f., the former Be, Inc, the former Stac, 
Inc., the former. . . you get the idea).
    Current settlement suggestions are NOT enough. Might I suggest 
that Microsoft be penalized heavily by forcing them to make good on 
their school offer, but instead of having them supply the schools 
with Microsoft software, force them to purchase hardware and use 
free software, like Red Hat Linux, perhaps even forcing them to 
purchase a support contract from Red Hat for the schools. That would 
give there competitors a leg up at Microsoft's expense. Just a 
thought.
    Either way, I know the government is interested in limiting what 
Microsoft puts into the core operating system. I'd suggest that it 
concentrate on what Microsoft pulls out of the OS. for instance, 
adding the browser to the OS for free is fine by me, as long as they 
don't use it to crush all competition, then pull it back out and 
charge for it.
    Perhaps the government should be permissive with what MS puts 
into their OS, but stingy with what it allows them to pull out.
    Thomas Caudron
    2549 Oconee Avenue
    Virginia Beach, VA 23454
    [email protected]



MTC-00015005

From: David Mann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a US citizen and my SSN is 447-74-0714. I would like to 
register a complaint against the Proposed Final Judgement in that it 
does not come close to touching the real problem of Microsoft's 
anticompetitive nature.
    For example, the license below does not restrict the user when 
using the software, but rather limits the rights of the user after 
the use of the software is complete. Example:
    An artist encodes an original piece of music using the encoder. 
The Artist closes the encoder software. The artist would like to 
distribute hi'/her music to as wide a range of listeners as 
possible. To do so, he/she packages the music with a player. At this 
time, the user is no longer using the software, and the data file 
created using the software is the property of the artist. The 
artist's right to distribute his own property is limited such that 
the artist does not have the freedom to bundle legally licensed 
software with his own property. The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 
7.1 SDK EULA states
    . . .  you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . .  Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); . . . 
    I strongly urge you to reject the Proposed Final Judgement 
against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    David Mann
    David Mann
    Global Solutions Architect
    [email protected]
    PGP Fingerprint: 8C80 0C44 B1FF E069 776B 6299 84EA DE7A F81C 
199B
    www.matrixone.com



MTC-00015006

From: Melvin Backus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed Microsoft settlement does little if anything 
toward correcting the problem, has almost no punitive value, and 
allows Microsoft to create an entire

[[Page 26030]]

generation of Microsoft ``zombies'' my allowing them to place their 
products in our school systems with governmental approval. Please, 
Just Say NO!
    mailto:[email protected]>
    Melvin Backus
    Sr. Quality Assurance Specialist
    770.671.0101
    http://www.equorum.com/> Visit us on the web!



MTC-00015007

From: Georges
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:34am
Subject: Enough!
    I am thoroughly disgusted to see Netscape and the 6 governors 
attempt to squeeze more money out of MIcrosoft. Enough is enough and 
any sensible judge(s) should throw them all out in the street to 
lick their wounds. Microsoft is not perfect but it certainly has 
nost certainly contributed in making this country the most 
productive in the world. It has a lot more to offer . . .  leave it 
alone!!
    Georges Lepoutre
    Knoxville, TN
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015008

From: Win Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--oppose Dear Sirs,
    I strongly disagree with the terms of the Proposed Final 
Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.
    I am profoundly disappointed and disturbed by what can only be 
characterized as a complete collapse by the government. The proposed 
terms of the settlement do not serve to unfetter the market from 
Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct, nor do they terminate their 
illegal monopoly, nor do they deny to Microsoft the fruits of its 
statutory violation. And they completely fail to ensure that there 
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization by Microsoft 
in the future. Not only does the settlement fail to address the key 
issues in my opinion, it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. For 
this reason, if no other, the settlement should be rejected.
    Winfield Hill
    36 Hall Road
    Stoneham, MA 02180



MTC-00015009

From: Hal Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the currently proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case.
    The shape of our society is increasingly determined by the 
nature of the technologies we use, and many of the most important 
technologies are those related to computers and the Internet. The 
mechanisms for citizens to make decisions about important 
technologies are through government regulation and through the free 
market mechanisms of capitalism.
    The facts of the Microsoft case have shown that Microsoft has 
blatnatly flouted the flaw in extending its monopolistic control 
over some of the most fundamental technologies of our society. Even 
more importantly, Microsoft has shown neither an understanding that 
its behavior is illegal nor an inclination to change its behavior in 
the future.
    Microsoft currently has hugely disproportionate power over the 
nature of the most important technologies in our society. To allow 
the current state of affairs to continue is to disarm both the 
governmental regulatory and the free market controls that citizens 
wield over their technological lives. This settlement would allow a 
social pariah more control, in many ways, over our society than our 
deomcractically elected government.
    The proposed settlement would do absolutely nothing to change 
the current state of affairs, since it has no built in mechanisms to 
enforce its provisions. Requiring Microsoft to open up its API's is 
one important step in reigning in its proven abuse of its monopoly.
    However, the settlement provides no enforcement mechanisms to 
require Microsoft to change its behavior. In fact, if Microsoft 
chooses to ignore the requirements of the settlement, the only 
remedy will be to take Microsoft back to court. If the current case 
has shown anything, it has shown that the speed of the legal process 
makes it almost wholly unsuitable for regulating the technology 
industry (witness the death of the browser market while the current 
Microsoft case dragged one). Given that Microsoft (1) has been 
proven to act illegaly in repeated instances, (2) has never admitted 
any degree of wrongdoing in its illegal acts, and (3) has repeatedly 
expressed the intent to continue the operation of its business as it 
sees fit, the most likely result of this settlement is the 
following. Microsoft will make, at best, nominal but uneffective 
efforts to follow the settlement provisions. Industry competitors 
will recognize Microsoft's illegal behavior and, within six months, 
encourage the government to file suit to require Microsoft to change 
its behavior. The current Microsoft case will be repeated over the 
next five years, after which time the government will agree to yet 
another settlement with unenforceable provisions, which Microsoft 
will once again blatantly ignore.
    Please do not throw away this chance to give the citizens of our 
country a say the shape of their lives.
    Sincerely,
    Hal Roberts



MTC-00015010

From: Robert Fowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am opposed to the settlement idea. It will not change the 
short or long term anti-competetive practices of Microsoft. I say 
this even though I hold 2 Microsoft Certifications and my main area 
of expertise puts me into daily contact with their server software.
    Just another voice,
    Robert Fowler



MTC-00015011

From: Lex Mierop
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement is BAD. It does little to punish an 
obvious violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Penalties for 
violation are supposed to be punitive. This settlement is not.
    For a full summary of the problems I have with this summary, 
please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Thank you,
    Lex Mierop



MTC-00015012

From: Sam Hill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    To date all of the remedies proposed in the anti-trust trial 
against Microsoft have fallen woefully short in punishing, or 
preventing further monopolistic behavior by a corporation that has 
demonstrated itself to be uncaring to the consumers it serves.
    I submit that the most reasonable course to take would be 
trifold.
    1) Fines must be levied: This would demonstrate that the DOJ and 
the American public hold Microsoft accountable for their past 
actions. As a company with over 30 billion dollars in cash reserves, 
any amount up to 8 billion dollars would serve to get their 
attention, while not amounting to a hardship to the company. These 
fines would be paid out within 5 years, with no provisions to extend 
the payment period allowed.
    2) Open the code: Closed systems become poisoned systems, this 
is a fundamental truth in biology and applies to other systems as 
well. For more than a decade Microsoft has had ample opportunity to 
address fundamental issues with their computer operating system, 
including stability and security, and they have steadfastly refused 
to do so. The only way to insure that these, and other issues, are 
addressed, is to open their system to peer review. Only then will 
users enjoy stability, security and innovation in their daily 
computing experience once again.
    3) Divorce Microsoft from the punishment phase of the 
proceedings: That they have been allowed to define and influence 
them is ludicrous, and has cast aspersions on the entire trial. Does 
a convicted felon get to tell the bench how s/he will serve their 
sentence? Get Microsoft and their lobbyists out of the way now and 
regain some measure of dignity to the proceedings.
    The solutions are simple, their implementation complex, but time 
is of the essence. While the wheels of Justice are slow, the 
Internet and computer code are not. To allow more time to pass 
before assessing real punishment against Microsoft only gives the 
company additional opportunity to thumb it's nose at the 
proceedings, while fattening it's coffers and spinning the truth. As 
an American citizen I ask that you take action on my behalf, today.
    Sincerely,
    Sam Hill
    Fort Worth, TX

[[Page 26031]]



MTC-00015013

From: -rb (Robert T. Brown)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is too 
favorable to the Microsoft Monopoly.
    Hello. My name is Robert Brown and I'm a computer software 
engineer, living in Virginia.
    The proposed settlement allows Microsoft to continue to grow 
their monopoly, at the expense of other companies and fellow 
hobbyists. Simply put, Microsoft (or any other rich and highly 
entrenched monopoly) can afford the most & best lawyers to find 
loopholes for the company to exploit. I acknowledge that eliminating 
loopholes is a difficult undertaking; however, we citizens rely on 
the government to do so (no one else can afford to take them on at 
this point).
    I see many weaknesses in the settlement, and I'm not a even a 
lawyer. Many of the weaknesses are described in this document: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
    This monopolistic situation stifles innovation and competition, 
and is a serious threat to the continued growth of the computer 
industry. I personally believe that the computer industry has a 
chance to revolutionize society, and to reaffirm American leadership 
worldwide, as the industrial revolution once did. Please strengthen 
the settlement, for the sake of other American computer companies, 
and the American people as well.
    -rb
    http://www.netmentor.com/rbrown
    If ``Real programmers use ``cat > a.out'.''



MTC-00015014

From: Cathy Nicoloff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I would like to enter my opinion into the record as being 
against the proposed settlement with Microsoft.
    Specifically, I am upset to see that the terms of the settlement 
do not refer to the documentation of Microsoft's endless supply of 
proprietary file formats such as their Windows Media files,
    Outlook mailboxes, Address books, Microsoft Office files, etc. 
These are a particular barrier to entry for any would-be software 
vendor, and this potentially knocks out of the market any competing 
products that would wish to edit/manipulate/import such files.
    Also, the sloppy wording of the exemptions to disclosure allowed 
to Microsoft would mean that they might actually get away with 
refusing to disclose details about their operating systems and 
software due to ``security reasons''. I realize that vagueness might 
be necessary to cover all unforeseen circumstances a long way in the 
future, but I believe it is possible to make the entire document 
more specific and add a provision to allow changes at a later date 
(presumably after lengthy research and communication with the 
public).
    Sincerely,
    Catherine Nicoloff



MTC-00015015

From: Riskable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    I hope the irony of using MS Hotmail to send this does not elude 
you.
    Thank you,
    Daniel McDougall
    10 Prince St.
    Beverly, MA 01915



MTC-00015016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have reviewed the proposed Microsoft Settlement and would like 
to share my opinion regarding this lacking solution. This proposed 
settlement does not penalize Microsoft for past infringements of the 
law, and I am NOT in favor of it, in its current state.
    Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and must now 
be held accountable in some measure.
    The current proposed settlement is unacceptable. Thank you for 
your time.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Johnston
    4020 Dorchester Walk
    Kennesaw, GA 30144



MTC-00015017

From: Joe Klein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    ** Confidential **
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Joe Klein, CISSP
    Information Security Consultant
    +1.904.403.4369



MTC-00015018

From: Keith Krabill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sir,
    I disagree with the proposed remedy placed before the public for 
comment in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I am most bothered by the 
fact that there is no apparent penalty for the past misdeeds of the 
corporation, making it appear that there is no deterrent to future 
misdeeds, especially given that some of these failures came 
following the failure to abide by previous agreements. Further, the 
proposed weak oversight of the proposed agreement lacks real teeth, 
and does not inspire confidence that this mechanism would be 
effective either. Further, by working in secret, the oversight may 
be prone to undue influence.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Keith Krabill



MTC-00015019

From: Rick Thompson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    -Rick Thompson



MTC-00015020

From: Ian Zepp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following are my comments to the proposed Microsoft-USDOJ 
settlement. I am the CEO of a small real-estate development firm, 
and as a member of the financial sector, find myself using the 
Microsoft Office suite of programs for most of my daily activities. 
I would like to switch to using a non-MS office suite, but because 
of the large numbers of documents that we have saved in Word and 
Excel formats, I am unable to do so.
    Microsoft has made it increasingly difficult over the past few 
years to use any competitive products, by keeping their document 
formats secret. For a smaller company this might not be a major 
grievance, but as Microsoft controls approximately 90% of the 
desktop market, their actions force me to continue using their 
products. Were I to switch to a competing product, I would be unable 
to interact with those who continue to use the Microsoft product.
    I sincerely hope that the US Department of Justice reconsiders 
their proposed settlement.
    Respectfully yours,
    Ian Zepp
    CEO. Zepp, Inc



MTC-00015021

From: Michael Dinsmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-NO!
    I vote NO! to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to 
exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.

[[Page 26032]]

    Michael D
    [email protected]
    Mac Genius@Clarendon VA
    http://www.apple.com/retail/clarendon



MTC-00015022

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is inadequate for any number 
of reasons. It stops far short of ending the many predatory and 
monopolistic tactics that have put Microsoft into its current 
position. One tactic that is particularly galling to me, and that is 
not addressed by the settlement, is Microsoft's use of language 
prohibiting ISVs from distributing any ``Freely Available'' (i.e., 
Open Source) software along with (i.e., installed on the same 
machine as) any of several ``redistributable components'' that are 
typically installed as a part of Windows. This effectively bars ISVs 
from installing any Open Source software on any Windows machine they 
sell, and forces them to keep any value-added software they have 
developed as closed source.
    From the Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA: . . .  
you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . .  Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); . . . 
    Ernest Friedman-Hill
    Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154
    Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
    Org. 8920, MS 9012 [email protected]
    PO Box 969 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
    Livermore, CA 94550



MTC-00015023

From: Scott Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    At this point I believe that Microsoft is trying to buy itself 
out of a financial nightmare of it's own making. As an IT 
professional and a US citizen it's nearly impossible for me to 
support a settlement of this nature. Microsoft as a company has 
essentially slapped around it's competitors and forced the business 
community into paying them what amounts to a yearly random in the 
form of it's EULA's and stranglehold on business software 
``standards.'' To support this settlement would be on the order of 
changing the name of this country to ``The United States of 
Microsoft.''
    Thank you
    Scott Johnson
    Programmer and Developer
    Rome, New York



MTC-00015024

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the settlement.
    George Ellenburg



MTC-00015025

From: Damian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am deeply concerned with the proposed settlement regarding the 
Microsoft case. I cannot help but feel that through financial and 
political manipulation microsoft is getting away with corporate 
murder. After all, how many of you are using their software right at 
this minute. My guess 99%. Oh yeah, I bet you are reading this with 
Microsoft Outlook installed on a Microsoft Windows based machine.
    Please reconsider the settlement to impose more strict measures 
on microsoft.



MTC-00015026

From: James Wartell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    James Wartell
    Tucson, Az



MTC-00015027

From: Homsher, Dave V.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    In Regards to the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft's business 
practices have stifled innovation and caused harm to most businesses 
in the United States through unfair licensing and shoddy 
workmanship. Unfortunately, businesses (and home users) do not have 
the opportunity to go somewhere else for their software needs 
because Microsoft has crushed any competition.
    Microsoft has not noticeably changed it's business even after 
being found guilty of illegal monopoly practices.
    I would like to encourage you to allow the best product to win, 
not the best leveraged product. Do not allow Microsoft to buy out/
roll over the US Government. We have a government of the people, by 
the people, and for the people--not of, by, and for the monopolistic 
company.
    Thank you for your time.
    Best Regards,
    Dave Homsher, II



MTC-00015028

From: John Bettiol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    I am a developer for a Java / Linux / Microsoft based company.. 
I do not wish to see the freedom of our company overridden by the 
future dominance of Microsoft.
    Regards,
    John Bettiol
    WorldLingo



MTC-00015029

From: David VandeVen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft stifles innovation. If a single individual were to 
engage in this kind of suppression of progress and engineered 
software with flaws because it was profitable they'd be facing 
criminal charges. If an individual causes harm to others he is 
removed from the public.
    The proposed settlement is a slap on the wrist, it does not 
protect the public from Microsoft's frighteningly draconian 
practices.
    -David Van de Ven
    Network Engineer/Software Developer



MTC-00015030

From: Andrew Gray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I wish to submit my comments 
regarding the Proposted Final Judgement for the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    I do not feel that the Proposed Final Judgement goes far enough, 
or even truely makes a reasonable attempt at slowing Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices, more less stopping them all together. I 
would like to see a final settlement with Microsoft at least stop 
their current, ongoing, rampant monopolistic behavior, and ideally 
punish them for having behaved like that. The current proposed 
settlement does neither, due to the phrasing of many paragraphs in 
the settlement giving Microsoft numerous loopholes to escape the 
already loose restrictions. As it has shown in the past with 
previous injunctions, Microsoft has the resources and the desire to 
do just this, and will do it again.
    Andrew Gray
    Las Vegas, NV



MTC-00015031

From: Van Den Bergh Guy
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:39am

[[Page 26033]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there,
    I am not a US citizen, but nevertheless, this issue has 
consequences for European citizens too. I think the current 
settlement is far too easy on Microsoft. You say they did something 
illegal, but you are not really punishing them, and you're not even 
making really sure they won't do this again.
    Best regards,
    Guy Van Den Bergh



MTC-00015032

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Let me add my voice to those OPPOSING the Proposed Final 
Judgment. While I don't pretend to understand completely all the 
legal nuances, I DO understand that Microsoft effectively holds a 
monopoly on the home/corporate desktop. Competition = good, monopoly 
= bad, for all of us.
    Thank you,
    Michael Smith



MTC-00015033

From: Bart Raatgerink
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over here in Europe we also think it's a very bad idea --
    Met vriendelijke groeten,
    Bart Raatgerink.
    eMAXX B.V.
    Marssteden 98
    P.O. Box 157
    7500 AD Enschede
    The Netherlands
    tel. +31 53 484 83 21
    fax. +31 53 484 83 23
    http://www.emaxx.nl



MTC-00015034

From: Tommie Giles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Tommie E. Giles
    3600 N. Chouteau
    Apt. D
    Kansas City, MO. 64117



MTC-00015035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft for their predatory 
monopolistic practices is very weak and ineffective. I strongly 
opposed the proposed settlement. Microsoft illegally abused their 
monopoly position, and they should be punished just like AT&T and 
IBM were punished when they abused their monopoly positions in the 
past.
    Greg Foster
    Senior Consultant--3X Corporation
    Collaborative Computing Solutions
    614-433-9406
    [email protected]
    http://www.3x.com



MTC-00015036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I am not in favor of the current 
proposed Microsoft settlement. Please consider this a vote against 
the current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that 
is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to 
Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Scott Morgan
    1102 Hoover Street
    Annapolis, MD 21403



MTC-00015037

From: pfharlock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Gary Watson. I wouldn't have known to send this email 
if I had not been reading slashdot, which I feel is a little 
irresponsible in a case that primarily involves a matter of public 
interest, (like an antitrust trial). That being said, I would like 
to voice my complaint about Microsoft being found guilty of breaking 
antitrust law and not being punished. Your effectively saying, yup, 
that's them, they're definately a monopoly, but heck if we know what 
to do about it. The situation is just as bad as it was before the 
trial began, or maybe even worse because it gives microsoft an even 
greater reason to believe that the law will never touch them.
    It was at one time suggested that microsoft be cut up into 3 
companies, this would do nothing but turn a monopoly into a 
collective oligopoly, I say that you should cut the company up into 
no less than 10 serperate competing companies, giving each one the 
rights to make and produce the windows OS code, each possibly 
developing a seperate shoot off of windows, and certainly break away 
all the peripheral arms from the part of the company that does OS 
design primarily, (ie seperate out the network applications division 
like IE but which also includes the webservers and the newest .NET 
component which is slated to kill any chance of competition all over 
again, the MS office division, the games division, effectively 
dismantle the marketing division, and let each company take a few 
members of the marketing team with them as they walk out the door). 
This would solve the problem, but after this trial I am in doubt if 
the courts have the resolve to see such an action through.
    It appears as though they are completely apathetic to having 
antitrust laws in the first place.



MTC-00015038

From: Salvador Gonzalez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft. I hope the irony of using 
MS Hotmail to send this does not elude you.
    Thank you,
    Salvador I. Gonzalez
    185 Kensington Read
    Lynbrook, NY 11563



MTC-00015039

From: Peter J Nesbitt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Government
    In regards to the Microsoft's antitrust case, i write you to 
respect me and every other individual. Microsoft is one of the 
noblest companies around. They create and create more. There is ZERO 
reasons why sucess is bad. Unfortunatly, by trying to ``break up 
Microsofts'' stanglehold of the marketplace'', you will break the 
backs of citizens like me. In a time of war, especially teenager's 
like me, need heroes not martyrs. Microsoft is my hero and always 
will be. All the other companies who cried ``abuse'' are not for the 
simple fact of this. Instead of create, the attempt to destroy. 
Instead of produce, they politic. This is not what we want our 
businesses to do. In order to have a stable marketplace, we need 
people to create. By putting the creators out of business, you only 
hurt us all. I write this in order to plea for a lesser sentence for 
Mircrosoft. When the government gets to big, the only way to fight 
it is words. In a world you attempt to create with a heavy hand over 
Microsoft's ability, you are making a world of looters. Ones who do 
it legally, ones who work in your Department. Just keep my thoughts 
in mind.
    Peter Nesbitt
    2012 S. Cambridge Ave
    Sioux Falls SD, 57106
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015041

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement is not adequate



MTC-00015042

From: T.E.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license

[[Page 26034]]

terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to 
prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not be covered at 
all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with
    .NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace 
Microsoft.NET with competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP
    Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--
operating systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as 
being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leavesWindows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs-- 
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    All of this seems to be too little too late. If this was any 
other Company there would be more to this. I guess that since it is 
MS and they make more money than GOD this makes it OK.
    I look at the AT&T Case and wonder where the Justice has gone! 
To me, just a poor little guy, it seems that MS has all the balls in 
their court as they always have had and nothing in the Final 
Settlement will change this.
    At this rate MS will keep doing things their way, which is not 
legal, and the consumers' don't get what they have been paying for 
for YEARS. Windows XP is the best example of this. MS pushes this 
out the door and down the consumers' throats saying that it is the 
BEST they have ever done. But in fact it is sloppy bug ridden code 
that should still be in BETA TESTING, not being sold to the public.
    Thanks for your time.
    Thomas E. Enstall



MTC-00015043

From: Dave Spicer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please judge Microsoft by its actions, not the pronouncements 
and maneuverings of its army of lawyers. I would expect Microsoft to 
say anything it thought people wanted to hear in order to pursue its 
own agenda.
    Along with the privileges of a near-monopoly position come 
responsibilities. Microsoft has a long history of valuing the former 
far above the latter. The consequences have already been enormous. 
Please seek a fair remedy to this situation. . . 
    David Spicer
    599 N. Louisiana Ave. #84
    Asheville, NC 28806



MTC-00015044

From: Anand Srivastava
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:46am
Subject: I am against the Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am very much against this settlement. It doesn't do any good 
to the public. Any good settlement must contain at least some of the 
following:
    1) Force open the API's of the Operating Systems and Data 
Formats. This is the crux of their monopoly. If this is not opened 
up properly, Microsoft will continue doing what they have till now. 
Don't for a time think they have any morals.
    2) Do something about their .net strategy.
    They want to be the gateway to the Internet. It will affect 
everybody, there will be no freedom. In addition look at the 
following document for an in-depth reason about what is wrong with 
the settlement.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Well, I don't live in the USA. But still this is a big problem 
for us in my country. USA tends to force their policies down the 
throats of people in other countries. It's like misery loves company 
so the USA tries to send its misery abroad.
    Thanks,
    --Anand



MTC-00015045

From: Mark Proctor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I work for Cisco systems within the UK, while not being a US 
citizen this case has far reaching proportions and will effect the 
IT industry on a global scale. I would right pages and pages of how 
I think the current settlement does nothing to re-balance the wrongs 
of Microsoft, I have included just a few of these detailed briefly 
below.
Windows Bundling--The Microsoft Tax
    I use GNU/Linux a free operating system. The fact that I cannot 
buy without great difficulty a machine, from one of the main 
computer dealers, without a copy of windows is disgusting--you try 
buying a dell desktop machine, a great computer, without a copy of 
windows, they just will not do it and I will not pay extra for 
something that I will not use.
Proprietary Formats, Protocals and API
    Microsoft's proprietary formats, such as their famous .doc word 
documents, and SMB file sharing protocol not forgetting their 
kerberos extensions are affronts on society--they at every single 
point hold back society technological development and create 
customer ``lockin'' by not allowing interoperability . I belive that 
all formats, protocols and APIs should be open and that closed 
proprietary ones should be made illegal--there are never any reasons 
for this other than customer lock in.
Artificially Narrow Restrictions
    It is vital when enforcing these that no loopholes are available 
by artificially narrow restrictions. The open source movement--

[[Page 26035]]

including products like OpenOffice, Wine, Samba, Kerboros and 
Linux--are on the verge on ushering in a new technological era--it 
is vital that any remedies specifically look after the interests of 
these projects, that exist for no other reason that public benefit 
and not corporate greed, and ensure they are capable for getting 
full unrestricted access and use to these formats, protocols and 
APIs.
    These are my own words, but I would like to add that I strongly 
agree with everything with the following open letter.
    http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
    Yours Sincerely,
    Mark Proctor Beng, Msc
    80 Harefield Road,
    Uxbridge, Middx,
    UB8 1PL
    UK



MTC-00015046

From: Steve Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the current proposed settlement does not go far 
enough in penalizing Microsoft for the predatory anti-trust 
behavior.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen E Clark
    2780 Cottonwood Ct.
    Clearwater, Fl 33761
    727-796-9371
    ``They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary 
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' (Ben Franklin)
    ``The course of history shows that as a government grows, 
liberty decreases.'' (Thomas Jefferson)



MTC-00015047

From: Dave Stoddard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been active in the computing field since before the 
beginning of the PC era. I have seen Microsoft reach too far into 
the cookie jar on numerous occasions only to be tapped on the wrist 
when someone had the courage or the legal support to challenge them.
    Should you not institute severe penalties on them and force them 
to completely restructure the way they do business, it would be a 
grave disservice to the state of computing and to your office.
    My opinion only,
    David Stoddard.



MTC-00015048

From: Michael Plump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the current 
form of the Microsoft settlement. I don't feel that the settlement 
does enough to provide reparations for those companies that were 
harmed by Microsoft's monopolistic anti-competitive behaviour.
    More importantly, I don't believe the settlement does enough to 
ensure that they will cease their illegal actions. Even after they 
were found guilty (and then reaffirmed guilty by the appeals court), 
they continued to engage in unfair and anti-competitive behaviour.
    I believe that this hastily proposed settlement does very little 
to stop these actions in the future, and also does little in the way 
of creating means for a competitor to the Windows and Office 
platforms to emerge. Obtaining a better settlement is in the 
national interest. Without it, we will be locked into a single 
company to provide a critical part of our national infrastructure.
    Michael Plump
    1422 SE 28th Ave.
    Portland, OR 97214



MTC-00015049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:47am
Subject: January 23, 2002
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I travel internationally quite extensively. But no matter where 
I go, I am almost assured that I will find the quality and 
reliability of the Windows operating system. Microsoft is a top-
notch company; it is one that should be able to continue with its 
business without being hindered at every step by an overly complex 
legal settlement.
    The company already has agreed to numerous concessions; it has 
made changes with regard to intellectual property rights, server 
inoperability, and a uniform price list. The proposed settlement is 
absolutely adequate to serve the interests of the computer industry 
and the buying public. Microsoft has indicated its willingness to 
engage in a fair, competitive business environment.
    I would argue that it is now time for the federal government to 
also conduct itself in a fair and reasonable manner. No more action 
should be taken on a federal level to penalize Microsoft. It should 
be allowed to resume its important work of keeping America as the 
most technologically advanced nation in the world.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Donald (Tony) Redolfi
    Technical Services/Account Manager--Asia
    Dayton Reliable Tool & Mfg. Co.
    618 Greenmount Blvd.
    Dayton, Ohio 45419 U.S.A.
    Tel: +937-298-7391 ext. 223
    Fax: +937-297-6740
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00015050

From: peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, we wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html ), namely:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems??
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs. but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware 
with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not be covered at 
all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft. NET with 
competing middleware.
    The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that all use 
the Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft ?? Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments,

[[Page 26036]]

and universities) charge by the number of computers which could run 
a Microsoft operating system--even for computers running competing 
operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.)
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities 
in its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs--
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MD As) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. We also agree with the conclusion reached by 
that document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It 
should not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Kegel, Los Angeles, California; Software Engineer, kegel.com
    Jeremy White, Saint Paul, Minnesota; President & CEO, 
CodeWeavers, Inc.
    David Dittrich, Seattle, Washington; Member, The Honeynet 
Project
    Jay Beale, Baltimore, MD; President, JJB Security Consulting
    Dave Wreski, Upper Saddle River, NJ; Director, Guardian Digital, 
Inc.
    Rik Farrow, Sedona, Arizona; Security Consultant
    Robin Miller, Bradenton, Florida; Editor, Linux.com
    Trevor Johnson, Gardena, California; Software Engineer; 
Contributor, FreeBSD Project
    Gary Calvin, Los Angeles, California; Systems Administration 
Manager, Kenwood Americas Corporation
    Clay J. Claiborne, Jr., Los Angeles, California; President, 
Cosmos Engineering Company;
    Founder, lula.org
    Ismet Kursunoglu, MD, Manhattan Beach, CA; Founder, 
linuxatlax.org
    Dallas Legan, Downey, California; Member, linuxatlax.org
    Michael Fair, Los Angeles; Member, linuxatlax.org
    Art Johnson, Los Angeles, California; Member lula.org, 
linuxatlax.org, CSC-SERC
    Ron Golan, Los Angeles, California; Member, lula.org
    Ryan Boder, Columbus, Ohio; Student, Carnegie Mellon University
    Bill Huey, San Diego, CA; Software Engineer
    Brandi Weed, Davis, CA; Consultant
    Brad O'Hearne, Irvine, CA; Software Engineer
    Amber Jain, Los Angeles, CA; Graduate Student, USC
    Brian Lau, Huntington Beach, CA; Software Engineer, Gordian Inc.
    Peter Boothe, Laguna Beach, CA; Software Developer, Gordian Inc.
    Greg Barnes, Seattle, Washington; Software Engineer, UW
    Brian Redfern, Los Angeles, CA; Linux Programmer
    Ken Settle, Newport Beach, CA; Software Developer, TransMedia 
Productions, Inc.
    Ian Hall-Beyer, Prairie Village, KS; Consultant
    Roger Partridge, West Chester, PA; software development manager; 
member, IEEE
    Drew Poulin, Edmonds, WA; Translator, Sole Proprietor, TransCom 
Japan
    Scott Call, Santa Rosa, CA; Network Engineer
    Igor Furlan, San Jose CA; IC Design Engineer, National 
Semiconductor James Richard Tyrer,
    Green Valley, AZ; Consultant; Member, ACM
    Dan Trevino, San Antonio, TX; President, bluemagnet, 11c
    Jim Belant, Pulaski, Wisconsin; Electrical Engineer, System 
Engineer
    David Mandala, Phoenix AZ; President, THEM Productions
    Jeremy Green, Norman, OK; CTO, Digital Commerce Solutions
    David Ford, Meriden, CT; Blue Labs Software
    John G. Hasler, Elmwood, Wisconsin; Debian Developer
    Evan Edwards, Palm Beach, FL; Vice President, Inforule Inc.
    Sinan Karasu, Seattle WA; Electrical/Software Engineer, 
bozuk.com
    Mary Pat McDonald, Phoenix, Arizona; Educator, Cartwright School 
District Robert Bercik,
    Washington DC; Computer Science, Georgetown University Robert 
Helmer, E1 Cerrito, CA;
    Systems Administrator, Namodn
    Deanna Thompson, Las Vegas, Nevada; System Adminitrator



MTC-00015051

From: Dawson Jerry U (Rick) CNIN
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. The main point of the 
trial was to restore competition. While that has somewhat taken care 
of itself, in my opinion, the only way to totally restore the 
competition would be to take away Microsoft's ability to restrict 
dual-booting of operating systems installed on OEM machines. Plus, 
makeing sure that the entire API is open. The sentence in the 
settlement that gives an exception to opening up API calls in the 
case of security leaves the whole thing toothless. Security experts 
have shown that an operating system would be more secure if it was 
open and reviewed for security breaches anyway.
    Rick Dawson



MTC-00015052

From: Vikram Sunkavalli
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015053

From: M Grossmann
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed remedies in the Microsoft case, as 
are various States'' Attorneys General and millions of users and 
consumers. The US Court of Appeals agreed ``unanimously'' that 
Microsoft had illegally kept its monopoly position, yet the proposed 
remedies do little to address the past wrongs and nothing to prevent 
further, similar actions by Microsoft.
    Without a Special Master, there will be no enforcement of any 
remedies laid out, which means that in a few years, DoJ will have to 
sue Microsoft again. Even if Microsoft's methods are changed, the 
structure already in place will continue to work in their favour, 
much as in the AT&T case through 1984. There is nothing in the 
settlement proposals addressing the improperly-obtained monies 
explained in Remedies Brief of Amici Curiae (Civil Action No. 98-
1232 (TPJ), http://www.econ.yale.edu/nordhaus/homepage/
Final%20microsoft%20brief.pdf). Are criminals not required to return 
illegal gains?
    For these and many other reason, I voice my strongest opposition 
to the proposed remedies.
    Sincerely,
    M W Grossmann
    Opinions expressed herein are my own. They are not, and should 
not be construed to be, the beliefs of or condoned by my employer.



MTC-00015054

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add a comment on the Microsoft Settlement. 
Microsoft has a history of partaking in dubious (and illegal) 
processes in order to maintain and build it's monopoly and diminish 
and remove competition. Yet, evey single occurrence of such 
practices being questioned and challenged has led to, at most, a 
slap on the wrist for Microsoft. And, by the time everyone has 
finished the debate over whether they had specificially set out to 
squash competition unfairly, said competition has already 
disappeared or has been reduced to an ineffectual remnant of itself. 
In essense, Microsoft's actions are generally successful once they 
drag out legal proceedings and debate. The challenge that the DOJ 
settlement faces is not to simply punish Microsoft for its 
practices--a slap on the wrist, but to chastise them and then force

[[Page 26037]]

changes which will rectify what Microsoft's actions have wrought.
    I am concerned that the settlement not only lacks any really 
punishment for Microsoft, but, more importantly, does very little to 
rectify the damage done by its actions. All that it seems to do is 
give Microsoft the option of choosing what they wish to disclose to 
whom so that they can be considered to be playing nice with others. 
Nothing in the ruling requires them to disclose enough details about 
their Office suite or OS to truly allow others to build software to 
interact or compete. Microsoft may have to reveal some information, 
but they get to choose what and to whom. In fact, the settlement 
would legalize Microsoft withholding information to some groups--
such as any group not considered a business. Then, should anyone 
complain, they can hold up the settlement, their ``punishment and 
rules of conduct'' and point out that they are being such a good 
little company in following the rules.
    I just wanted to express my disappointment with what seems to be 
an innefectual settlement. I am not saying that Microsoft 
necessarily needs to be split up or obliterated. But perhaps 
something which actually seeks to rectify the problems would be 
better. . . 
    --Mike Masino



MTC-00015055

From: Michael Poole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
and how it fails address the monopoly abuses perpetrated over and 
over by Microsoft Corporation.
    One of Microsoft's oldest tactics in its battle to thwart the 
government and bleed more money out of consumers is by changing its 
business just enough for old anti-trust remedies to no longer apply. 
The proposed settlement has several weaknesses that Microsoft could 
exploit in this way, many hinging on their (already announced) 
migration to the .NET platform.
    For example, ``Microsoft Middleware'' is defined to exclude code 
that Microsoft ships as part of a ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' but which would otherwise fulfill the role of a current 
``Microsoft Middleware'' product. Microsoft has announced that the 
.NET framework will be included in future versions of Windows, and 
that it is moving its applications to use .NET. The settlement 
appears to allow Microsoft all its old tricks with .NET.
    Further, ``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined to only 
apply to code for ``Personal Computers,'' and specifically includes 
server product lines, handheld computers, and set-top boxes (areas 
where Microsoft is currently expanding its reach--for example, my 
Compaq iPAQ handheld runs Windows CE and cannot interoperate with 
Linux over USB because Windows CE uses a non-public communications 
interface; this would not stand if Microsoft were not the dominant 
desktop OS vendor). The settlement allows Microsoft to define what 
does and does not constitute a Windows Operating System Product.
    There are many other flaws in the proposed settlement which 
allow Microsoft to aggressively exploit its monopoly position, to 
the harm of consumers and competitors alike. Others have pointed 
them out; I will omit them, to keep this letter brief.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Poole
    Reston, Virginia



MTC-00015056

From: Jon Hartwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to add my statement that I think the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is an EXTREMELY bad idea. It is quite obvious 
to me that Microsoft is demonstrating that it is exactly the 
monopoly that it was proved to be in federal court. I see daily 
signs of how MS wants to monopolize further areas of current markets 
and push its products and ideas onto the PC, music, broadband, and 
gaming markets. I really urge you to consider a severe judgment in 
this case. I do not want to see a country under the rule of MS and 
its will.
    Jon Hartwell
    [email protected]



MTC-00015057

From: Morrow, David L
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very disturbed that the DOJ settlement with Microsoft seems 
to do nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to incorporate 
into its operating system anything it wants. Microsoft thereby 
appropriates to itself valuable desktop real estate and denies 
others an equal chance to compete.
    Microsoft also keeps many of its interfaces and formats a secret 
which also denies others the opportunity to work with its operating 
system on an equal basis.
    The simplest solution would have been to break the company into 
three parts: operating systems, software applications, internet 
service.



MTC-00015058

From: Jean-Claude Bourut
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    To an average software engineer like me, it takes days to figure 
out how to configure my computer using Microsoft operating system, 
so probably it is even worse for you or any nonskilled person using 
a pc. As a result, people follow the easy path of using whatever is 
already pre installed on their computer. Since ONLY Microsoft 
defines what is bundled with the OS, people use Microsoft solutions. 
This gives a Microsoft controlled OS (try to find a PC with 
Linux+Windows), a Microsoft controlled browser, a Microsoft 
controlled ISP: aka MSN, and generally the death of all competitors 
that do not have an alternate source of founding. As long as 
Microsoft is allowed to use its monopoly on the PC as a launching 
pad to new markets, there cannot be any fair competition and people 
will pay too much for old product.
    It is sad to see the US Justice Department allowing a proven 
guilty Microsoft to run business as usual with the release of 
Windows XP. Only a solution that creates a stone wall between the 
successful businesses and the new business of Microsoft would allow 
competition to flourish. MSN, webTV, XBox business should belong to 
different companies without any technical, marketing or shareholder 
ties.
    As far as penalty is concerned, mass replication of software 
costs zero, the only thing that matters is money or jail or both.
    Regards,
    Jean-Claude Bourut



MTC-00015059

From: Bob Bryant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read and listened to the pros/cons of the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT in favor of it. It must be amended. 
The settlement does not, in any way, penalize Microsoft for its past 
transgressions of the law. For many years, OEMs have been under 
control of this corporation and will continue to be unless a 
meaningful and just penalty is adjudged. Microsoft has been declared 
guilty of past wrongs for the second time, and must now be held 
accountable in some measure. As you can see I believe that the 
current proposed settlement is unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Bryant
    10592 Alderson Ave.
    Garden Grove CA



MTC-00015060

From: Imad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I would like to take just a moment to share my views on the 
current proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. It is my opinion 
that the proposal, as it now stands, is a slap--nay, a pat--on the 
wrist approach that fails to truly allow competition in those areas 
where Microsoft has abused its monopolistic powers.
    First and foremost, Microsoft must be forced to make its APIs, 
file formats, and protocols totally and unequivocably open. As it 
stands, there is far too much ambiguity in the clause pertaining to 
this--as interpreter of the document, Microsoft can well claim that, 
say, Linux developers are not to have this information shared with 
them as they do not represent a commercial product. Likewise, there 
is too much leniency granted by the exclusion of remote Windows 2000 
administration related protocols. Many of these protocols--SMB/CIFS, 
for example--are used indirectly for Windows 2000 remote 
administration but are also crucial for creating products that are 
interoperable with Windows 2000 server. The ``Reasonable And Non-
Discriminatory'' licensing terms hurt Microsoft's biggest 
competition--the open-source/free-software movement that has

[[Page 26038]]

given us Linux, OpenBSD, Mozilla/Netscape, OpenOffice, KOffice, and 
the like. All standards, API calls, protocols, etc. MUST be open for 
these valued members of the software community.
    Futhermore, the document must be revised to remove the mess of 
loopholes that exist which allow Microsoft to obey the word of the 
settlement without conforming to its spirit of non-discriminatory 
behavior. As it stands, Microsoft can ignore much of the document as 
it is riddled with technical loopholes. For example, Microsoft is 
able to force PC makers to associate internet content with Internet 
Explorer, word processing documents with Microsoft Word, and the 
like--removing shortcuts doesn't change the underlying behavior when 
a user clicks on a text document or an internet link. The three-
member enforcement crew has two members picked or approved by 
Microsoft itself, nullifying any usefulness of the group, especially 
when coupled with the fact that none of the members are allowed to 
speak of the atrocities they see committed by Microsoft. Such 
litigation is absurd and meaningless, but could be salvaged by 
revising the terms of the settlement to preserve the spirit but 
allow less leeway to Microsoft, which has a history of twisting or 
disobeying court orders.
    Lastly, Microsoft's non-operating system groups must be either 
internally or externally seperated so that they are not allowed 
``backdoor'' entrance to the operating system; the Microsoft Office 
team should have the same information on operating system-related 
APIs and protocols as does the competition (e.g., Corel's 
WordPerfect Office team, Sun StarOffice team, KDE's KOffice team).
    Thank you for your time. --
    Best,
    Imad Hussain
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015061

From: GH
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:53am
Subject: Spank Microsoft. . . 
    Sir or Madam,
    Below you will find email correspondence with Connecticut 
Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal. He mentioned that I could also 
state my opinion to this body as well. That opinion follows directly 
after the ``GH wrote:'' section below.
    Before you get there, however, I would like to make one addition 
to what I have stated below. I would like to see Microsoft forced 
into releasing a version of Windows without Internet Explorer welded 
to the operating system. I mean totally removed, not uninstallable, 
not leaving ``stubs'' of functionality hidden, totally removed. Of 
late, Internet Explorer's inclusion has caused no end of grief as we 
must constantly patch the browser if we want to remain secure on the 
Internet. Since there is little technical reason, if any, to bolt 
the OS and browser together, I feel Internet Explorer's removal 
would actually lead to more secure systems ``out of the box''. This 
holds true for all current desktop and server versions of the 
Windows product. Simply put, the Internet Explorer browser, as 
provided and bolted to Windows, is an insecure addition to an 
already insecure operating system that satisfies Microsoft's 
strategic goals while causing more work for systems administrators 
and exposing millions of consumers world-wide to compromised 
security.
    It is time that Microsoft shoulders the burden for all the ills 
they have visited upon a thriving Information Technology industry 
and its consumers.
    Thanks for your time,
    Geoffrey Harnett
    IT Engineer.
    --- Richard Blumenthal [email protected]> wrote:
Date: Wed,  09 Jan 2002 11:44:51 -0500
From: Richard Blumenthal [email protected]>
To: GH [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Spank Microsoft. . . 
GH wrote:
    Sir or Madam,
    In no way do I agree with the proposed DOJ settlement with 
Microsoft. There are simply no teeth and rest assured, any 
settlement that Bill Gates is comfortable with is flawed. The only 
options that will prevent Microsoft from futher hindering 
competition and abusing its monopoly are those that will hurt. I 
feel the measures presented by the hold-out states will be more 
effective as a punishment and deterrent than what has been decided 
by the DOJ.
    However, I think there should be one more area in which 
Microsoft should be scrutinized. Its code. Specifically, has 
Microsoft enhanced Windows and application functionality by 
unlawfully using GPL'd (or other open source licensed) code without 
adhering to the particular license mandates and in effect, stealing 
it? There should be a mechanism that allows open source license 
holders, via a trusted third party, to inspect Windows code in a 
safe room for infringment on open source code. If caught violating 
any licensed code they should be sued for damages, which essentially 
forces them to release their ``enhanced'' code under the violated 
license. I feel that Microsoft's abject dislike of the GPL license 
can be directly attributed to fear of being caught using code 
distributed under that license in Windows yet not freely 
redistributing enhanced code as the license requires.
    Microsoft has proven themselves wholly untrustworthy in business 
and in the courtroom. If they will lie in Federal court without any 
remorse then they will certainly abuse open source licenses for 
their gain.
    Thanks for your time,
    Geoffrey Harnett
    IT Engineer
    http://greetings.yahoo.com
    Dear Mr. Harnett:
    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-00015062

From: Tobias Johansson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement, excuse my language, sucks.
    Tobias Johansson
    webdeveloper
    Resfeber Sweden AB
    www.resefeber.se
    www.reisefeber.no
    www.rejsefeber.dk



MTC-00015063

From: Kermit Woodall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is woefully insufficient and 
fails to address some of the most problematic areas of Microsoft's 
behavior.
    Kermit Woodall
    Nova Design, Inc.



MTC-00015064

From: Andrew Jeavons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    The proposed settlement by the US government with Microsoft is 
not in the interests of consumers in the USA. Microsoft has 
consistently abused its position of dominance in the marketplace and 
this settlement will do nothing to change this. This settlement is a 
bad idea and should not go forward.
    sincerely
    Andrew Jeavons

[[Page 26039]]



MTC-00015065

From: peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015066

From: peter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.



MTC-00015067

From: Eric Kobrin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is ridiculous. Microsoft 
has shone again and again that it DOES NOT follow the rules. They 
always find a loophole. They released their most anti-competitive OS 
ever, Windows XP, during the antitrust case. Windows XP forces 
casual users to buy new software--it suggests Microsoft software of 
course. If you open any older applications, it presents a dialog box 
telling you that it may be unstable and that they should upgrade. I 
have never found this statement to be true. I helped a woman who was 
in fits over those dialog boxes. Power users and computer 
consultants know to delve deeper. There is a button that disables 
the messages and lets you use the software you already own; but most 
casual users are startled by the warning and just stop using their 
software. During the antitrust case, Microsoft also removed Java 
from their OS, thus preventing much cross-platform software from 
flourishing. They are effectively requiring that if you want to 
develop for Windows, you must develop programs that run ONLY on 
Windows, using Microsoft tools of course. What company will develop 
cross-platform software in Java if they know it won't run under XP 
with out serious user intervention? Companies deciding between Java 
and C# will be more likely to use C#--creating yet another pice of 
software that runs only on Windows and reducing the appeal of other 
operating systems. Microsoft also released a new version of their 
Internet Explorer web browser that is incompatible with software 
developed for other browsers or by other companies. Eventually, 
other companies were able to rewrite their software to be 
compatible, but not until Microsoft had embedded their own software 
using the knowledge that other companies would need to learn the new 
API whereas Microsoft wrote the API. For example, the new Explorer 
broke compatibility with Apple's cross-platform multi-media standard 
Quicktime. Of course compatibility with Microsoft's own competing 
Windows Media player was never broken. Quicktime is a free and open 
standard that has lost popularity because of this.
    Microsoft IS anti-competitive. The courts agree. Competing 
developers have known this for a decade. They have not obeyed 
previous anti-trust rulings. They created more anti-competitive 
software during the current anti-trust case. The pattern will not 
stop until Microsoft is either broken up or has their charter 
revoked. If they were broken up, competitors like Apple would not 
have to compete against Microsoft developing plug-ins for their own 
software before anyone else can as they did with Windows Media 
Player in Internet Explorer. My favorite remedy, but an unlikely one 
considering Microsoft's massive campaign contributions to both 
parties is for their charter to be revoked. Yes, their charter 
should be revoked. The source code should be put in hte public 
domain. In that upheaval, dozens inf not hundreds of other companies 
would be given the chance to flourish. Microsoft is like a giant 
tree overshadowing hundreds of saplings. Pruning the behemoth 
(breaking them up) would help a little, but cutting the whole tree 
down would let everyone compete on an even playing field.
    Eric Kobrin
    [email protected]
    305-595-5646



MTC-00015068

From: Munir Nassar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  7:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to exercize my rights and comment on the proposed 
settlement in the US vs. Microsoft case. It was proposed by 
Microsoft that they donate Computer Hardware and software to schools 
as a punishment for their illegal monopolistic actions. When i was 
younger a punishment was something that i would remember, usually 
through pain, either physical or emotional. I, and I would think 
nobody else, was ever punished by getting gifts. It may seem 
tempting to take Microsoft up on their offer as it would cost them 
Millions if not Billions of dollars. But it would also distribute 
the Windows Operating system to thousands of students expanding 
Microsoft's monopoly. Additionally the K-12 educational market has 
always been Apple Computers'' best selling market. To accept this 
judgement would cause great and maybe even irreparable harm to Apple 
Computers.
    A lot of people believe the proposed settlement is a great thing 
for our school system as it would bring computers into the hands of 
the students. A distributor or the Linux Operating System has 
proposed that Microsoft supply the hardware and RedHat supply the 
operating system as a suitable punishment. The idea has merit but I 
propose a small change. Have Microsoft supply a computer to every 
student in every public school in the country, a move that should 
liven the economy a bit. And give the schools an option on what type 
of computer this would be and what operating system, be it RedHat, 
Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, BeOS, OS/2, QNX or MacOS just to name a 
few.
    In the operating system market there are many companies that 
market an alternative to Microsoft's Windows, but Microsofts'' 
anticompetitive practices have kept these alternatives from the 
hands of the public. It would be fitting that the punishment allow 
competitors into the playing field.
    In short, I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea and I am 
strongly against it.
    -Munir



MTC-00015069

From: Frederick Haab
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional computer programmer for 10 years (20 as a 
hobbyist), I must express my disappointment with the current state 
of the ``Microsoft Settlement''. Understanding you are probably 
receiving hundreds, if not thousands of responses, I will simply say 
that the current conditions of the settlement are too little, too 
late. They do nothing to adequately punish or dissuade Microsoft 
from using unfair business practices in the future. If nothing else, 
we must learn from the past--the settlement in ``95 did NOT work. 
This settlement, as written, will NOT work. You must look forward to 
the future of the industry and prepare for the possible

[[Page 26040]]

abuse of monopoly power, not simply ``band-aid'' past 
transgressions.
    Frederick Haab,
    Atlanta, GA,
    Software Engineer,
    Turner Broadcasting.
    Frederick Haab
    ([email protected])
    Turner Studios: Redefining Excellence



MTC-00015070

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I strongly disagree with the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust trial for reasons outlined below. I strongly 
encourage you to bring substantially more severe sanctions against 
the company to curb its anticompetitive practices.
    The remedy is insufficient for these reasons:
    The proposed remedy doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems.
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
proposed remedy fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The proposed remedy Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow 
Definitions and Provisions.
    The proposed remedy supposedly makes Microsoft publish its 
secret APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important 
APIs are not covered.
    The proposed remedy supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not 
be covered at all.
    The proposed remedy allows users to replace Microsoft Java with 
a competitor's product-- but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. 
The proposed remedy should therefore allow users to replace 
Microsoft.NET with competing middleware.
    The proposed remedy supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it 
defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating 
systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertised as being 
``Windows Powered''.
    The proposed remedy fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The proposed remedy requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but 
only after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their 
middleware is compatible.
    The proposed remedy requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The proposed remedy does not require Microsoft to release 
documentation about the format of Microsoft Office documents. The 
proposed remedy does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The proposed remedy Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on 
Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems. 
Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large companies, 
state governments, and universities) charge by the number of 
computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)
    The proposed remedy Fails to Prohibit Intentional 
Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in 
the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its applications 
to keep them from running on competing operating systems.
    The proposed remedy Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices 
Towards OEMs
    The proposed remedy allows Microsoft to retaliate against any 
OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    The proposed remedy allows Microsoft to discriminate against 
small OEMs--including regional `white box' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems--who ship competing software.
    The proposed remedy allows Microsoft to offer discounts on 
Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft 
Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas.
    The proposed remedy as currently written lacks an effective 
enforcement mechanism. As a taxpayer and consumer, I demand the 
government take immediate action to abandon this settlement and seek 
strong corrective action against Microsoft that addresses the above 
issues.
    Sincerely,
    Al Thompson



MTC-00015071

From: Jim Power
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement sends a very cynical message to the 
general public: anti-trust enforcement, even for the most egregious 
of offenders, can be killed by the proper political contributions. 
The current proposal, does nothing to alter Microsofts future 
actions or punish its past ones. Microsoft has a history of 
manufacturing phony grass root efforts. I would imagine that any 
comments you receive in favor of the settlement are heavily weighted 
by Microsoft PR firms masquerading as private cititzens, or 
Microsoft employees sending from a non .microsoft account.
    Specifically, I don't believe that the current proposal provides 
adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    -James M. Power



MTC-00015072

From: Robert Crable
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Robert Crable
    Assistant Research Engineer
    Research Instruments Electronics Shop
    Chemistry Department
    The Pennsylvania State University
    148 Davey Lab
    University Park, PA 16802
    Phone: 814-865-0254
    Fax: 814-863-5319
    Email : [email protected]



MTC-00015073

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 26041]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to urge the government to prosecute this case as 
far as possible utilizing the penal system. Settling will be 
interpreted as a sign of weakness and a sign that the United States 
of America is willing to tolerate monopolies.
    In my opinion, this constitutes a dangerous precedent.
    Sincerely yours,
    Ranieri Argentini



MTC-00015074

From: Felix, Frances
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Please, please, please! find a strong, effective way to enforce 
the Microsoft settlement. I believe that Microsoft has gone on for 
far too long in beating down and preventing competitors. The problem 
I see is that if you do not find a way to enforce it, this 
settlement will be like the Telecommunications act of 1996. Right 
now, the incumbent phone companies drag their feet and halfway 
comply constantly. They get fined, but continue to resist. This 
resistance and all the obstacles they put in front of competitors 
has been a large factor in all the DSL companies'' bankruptcies. I 
believe that Microsoft will do the same thing. They will resist 
fully complying. They will drag their feet and they will try to get 
away with as much as they can. They are the top dog right now and 
will resist giving up any of their advantages.
    Fran Felix
    Covad Communications
    NOC Liaison Specialist
    Cube 4410 Java Place
    Manassas, VA
    Cube: 703-530-2182



MTC-00015075

From: Mark Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to comment on Microsoft settlement. It is my belief 
that Microsoft needs to be broken up into two seperate companies. 
They have a 90% market share in the operating system industry, and 
this will remain after the proposed settlement. Microsoft should be 
broken into 2 parts, an operating systems company(to produce 
windows) and a software applications company(to produce MS Office). 
The software applications company should then be required to 
realease versions of every major program it produces for at least 2 
non-Microsoft operating systems. This is the only way to restore 
competition to the market without severly hurting the computing 
industry.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Mark Wilson



MTC-00015076

From: Charles Hood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    According to the Tunney Act, I have the opportunity to comment 
on the proposed Microsoft settlement. In brief, I think its a bad 
idea. Specifically, I think the Proposed Final Judgement contains 
definitions that are too narrow and perhaps misleading. For example, 
``API'' is so tightly defined that it might exclude APIs used by the 
Microsoft Installer for installing software on Windows. Please 
reconsider.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Hood
    Roswell, GA



MTC-00015077

From: James Tedrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:59am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Like many citizens, I utilize an Intel computer. I use this 
computer for a variety of purposes, including academic research, 
personal business and entertainment. Again, like many people, I have 
followed the proceedings of the Microsoft antitrust trial with 
interest. Upon reviewing the proposed settlement, I find it 
inadequate on many counts. It will allow Microsoft to continue its 
dominance by creating significantly different software (in a manner 
similar to the migration from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95). Secondly, 
the definition of API is overly narrow, and third party operating 
systems are not allowed to utilize these APIs. Finally, this 
settlement does not address the licensing of other Microsoft 
applications, which create a de facto barrier to entry by barring 
their use either with or on third-party operating systems (I am 
specifically referring to the End User Licensing Agreements of the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK and Microsoft Visual C++ 
applications).
    Sincerely,
    James Tedrick



MTC-00015078

From: Knoll, Jim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement remedies in the Microsoft 
antitrust case do not go far enough in protecting consumer rights.
    With Microsoft's .NET initiative, I believe a failure to 
adequately restrain Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior will 
negatively impact innovation, quality and choice for computer 
hardware and software consumers.
    Regards,
    James D. Knoll



MTC-00015079

From: Steve Goldsby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on at least one area of the proposed 
settlement, and how it clearly does very little to restrict 
Microsoft's monopolistic tendencies. The proposed judgement 
prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, but 
simultaneouly allows the following exclusionary practices: Section 
III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if 
they offer competing products. Section III.B. also allows Microsoft 
to offer unspecified Market Development Allowances--in effect, 
discounts--to OEMs. For instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on 
Windows to OEMs based on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft 
to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to 
increase its market share in other areas, such as office software or 
ARM-compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the Proposed Judgement is 
encouraging Microsoft to extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible 
operating systems, and to leverage it into new areas.
    Please take action to ensure the ability of other businesses to 
compete in this space.
    Steve Goldsby, CEO
    Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc.
    www.integrate-u.com http://www.integrate-u.com>



MTC-00015080

From: Clark Rawlins
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs/Madams,
    I am writing to say that I think that the proposed settlement to 
the anti-trust case that Microsoft has lost doesn't have enough 
teeth in it to preclude Microsoft from abusing its Monopoly power. 
In my own company I see evidence that Microsoft continues to use its 
dominance in the desktop operating system arena to extend its 
influence in other areas of computing, in particular in the embedded 
systems arena.
    I think that the best solution would be to break Microsoft into 
three separate companies, all of which have full rights to all of 
Microsoft's Intellectual property. Furthermore, I think that the 
current officers and primary shareholders of Microsoft should be 
barred from owning shares in more than one of these three companies.
    I realize that my solution will probably not be considered, 
however I don't think that the current proposal has enough teeth to 
keep Microsoft from repeating its abuse of monopoly power.
    Sincerely
    Clark Rawlins
    Senior Engineer
    Network Services Engineering
    OpenGlobe, Inc.
    (An Escient Technologies Affiliate)
    6325 Digital Way
    Indianapolis, IN 46278
    317-616-6574
    [email protected]



MTC-00015081

From: Beth E. Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26042]]

Date: 1/23/02  8:01am
Subject: Settlement
    I am opposed to the current proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
believe that by the government-sanctioned flood of Microsoft 
supplied hardware and software into the educational market that the 
government would be handing Microsoft a significant portion of the 
educational market for free. I thought that the original action was 
brought on behalf of *consumers;* consumers like me who bought 
licenses to use Microsoft products that crash and take my data down 
with them, that insist on placing themselves on my desktop until I 
forcibly remove them with a third-party program, who choose to use a 
better, faster web browser (Opera) but are still forced to let MS 
Internet Explorer reside on their hard disks because it is required 
to install security patches and bug repairs to the leaky and fault-
ridden products; consumers who run home networks with Linux and 
Microsoft operating systems to can expect SAMBA connectivity to go 
down the tubes with every new version of Windows.
    My kids already have computers in their school; nice, stable 
Apples. I wouldn't wish Microsoft computers on any school anywhere. 
The proposed settlement does nothing for Me and the damage I have 
suffered. Make Windows Update available without MSIE, open up the 
APIs so more programs can work with Windows, insist that Windows 
play nice with other operating systems. That would help me. regards,
    Beth Johnson
    93 Clayton St.
    Springfield, MA 01107 USA --
    Beth Johnson
    Springfield, MA USA
    This message was created and sent completely independent of 
Microsoft products.
    No electrons were harmed in the making of this message.



MTC-00015082

From: David Battle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you are letting Microsoft off far too easily. How is 
letting them provide equipment to train school children that Windows 
is the One True Way going to help competition?
    Sincerely,
    David L. Battle
    204 Golfclub Rd
    Knoxville, TN 37919-5924
    +1 865 588 7763



MTC-00015083

From: Garrett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement will not 
prevent Microsoft from staying a monopoly in the computer industry. 
Microsoft employees are spreading this around as ``. .a victory over 
the government.'' If the government shows they are incapable or 
unwilling to stop Microsofts monopoly over the software industry, 
who else is there to stand in Microsofts way?
    Since the trial has started Microsofts grip on ISP's and 
hardware vendors has slowly loosend up for fear of how it would be 
represented in the case against them. Once Microsoft accepts the 
current settlement they will go back to their previous methods of 
forcing the industry to accept their software and force out 
competitors, but it is not their previous methods the software 
industry is only worried about. By receiving the current settlement 
this will show the industry that even the government and it's laws 
cannot stop Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft will be able to expand 
their practices beyond strict EULA's, enforcing proprietary 
``standards'' and harassing/buying out small companies. They will be 
able to stretch more laws, find more loopholes and choose more ``un-
ethical'' business means knowing that the most powerful system that 
could have stopped them was not powerful enough.
    Once again I say that the DOJ and US government should be 
putting a stop to Microsofts monopoly. By forcing them to release 
their file formats, source code, protocols or something similar that 
will allow other companies to compete with them. But the current 
settlement simply shows that the government no longer has the power 
to enforce the laws that control our capitalist country.
    Garrett Banuk
    44 Pleasant St.
    Cambridge, MA
    02139



MTC-00015084

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    If you're going to read any mail. . . read this one please.
    Please * * * allow me to briefly tell you how tired I am of 
Microsoft and their practices * * *
    INNOVATION:
    They use the word ``innovation'' as if they coined it 
themselves. The Truth of the matter is that they haven't really ever 
innovated anything. Every big product that they've ever had was 
either based on an idea concocted from someone else or was material 
that they forcibly extracted by crushing another company.
    SECURITY: `Security' and `Microsoft' are two words not often 
found in the same sentence. I try to fun as much open-source 
software as I can because I know that if a bug is found, then an 
army of programmers around the world will flock to fix it by the 
next day. Microsoft's idea of security is to bribe the world into 
not vocalizing bugs that they find with MS software. Do I REALLY 
need to give examples here? How many billions of dollars did 
businesses lose and how much information was forcibly removed from 
MS-run sites in the last two years alone by using Microsoft products 
such as Passport and Internet Information Server? They try to force 
their products on the rest of the world by using some pretty nasty 
tactics; the only problem is that their software is inferior.
    COMPETITION:
    Microsoft has come out with a very interesting method of 
competing with other viable software solutions. Why should they be 
motivated to make a better product when they could spend their time 
lobbying congress for favors or forcing subversive contracts on to 
the OEMs to crush the resistance to the Microsoft machine.
    BOTTOM LINES:
    They were found guilty. Why haven't they been punished? I was 
always under the impression that settlements were for people to 
decide upon BEFORE a verdict was reached and not after a finding of 
`guilty' was found. Also . . . I like CHOICES ON MY SOFTWARE. 
MICROSOFT OFFERS NONE. And. . . if I'm going to have software forced 
on me, I want it to AT LEAST BE GOOD SOFTWARE. Competition is born 
of companies competing with each other and thus improving. MS has 
found ways around this process and still comes out on top. If you 
folks let them get away with this, then I guess I really will never 
understand our government and how they could let a travesty like 
this happen. Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015085

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is not in the best 
interests of the individual computer user or of the Federal 
Government. I recommend strongly that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement be reviewed and that the breakup strategy be revisited.
    Thank you,
    David B. Raschen
    1502 15th Ave SW
    Decatur, AL 35601
    256-355-4350



MTC-00015086

From: Pat J
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
serve to restore competition back to the Operating System market. It 
is a slap on the wrist. It does not stop and may even encourage 
Microsoft to engage in the same business practices in other markets.
    -- Pat



MTC-00015087

From: Ben Derr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to those that think that the 
proposed Microsoft settlement is unacceptable.
    Please do not approve the currently proposed settlement. 
Microsoft has grievously injured the software and computer 
industries and should not be allowed to continue unchecked. 
Supplying more of the software that has been used to subvert the 
industry to the parties that are objecting to that subversion is not 
the right answer and will not repair any damages, but in fact 
acerbate the problem.
    Sincerely, a concerned US citizen,
    Ben Derr
    [email protected]
    2400 Backbay Drive

[[Page 26043]]

    Columbus, Ohio
    43235



MTC-00015088

From: John M. Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    John M. Ford
    823 Queen Anne Place
    St. Louis MO
    63122



MTC-00015089

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settltment
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement, under 
the Tunney Act. I believe that the proposed settlement contains many 
narrow definitions and provisions which will allow Microsoft to 
sidestep the terms of the settlement in the future.
    A simple example of this would be the definition of a ``Windows 
Operating System Product''. The settlement defines this as simply 
Windows 2000, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional and their 
successors. There are no provisions in the settlement which seem to 
restrict Microsoft from using their monopoly on Intel-compatible PC 
operating systems to hijack another similar market which isn't 
covered by the settlement. Microsoft's current entry into the 
console gaming market via the X-Box is an example of this. Microsoft 
is willing to lose substantial money on each piece of X-Box hardware 
for the sole purpose of gaining market share in this similar market.
    Once established, Microsoft can use their market dominance, this 
time including both hardware and software, to push rivals out of the 
market. After competition has been destroyed, Microsoft can simply 
add additional hardware to the X-Box, making it a fully-functional 
PC--a PC who's operating system is not covered by this proposed 
settlement.
    The above scenario may not be likely, but the possibility that 
it even exists shows that the proposed settlement isn't in the 
public's best interest. According to the Court of Appeals ruling, 
``a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a 
market from anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation, and ensure that there remain no practices likely to 
result in monopolization in the future''.
    There are many other instances of problems with the proposed 
settlement, too numerous to mention here. The point that I'd like to 
make is that I believe the settlement doesn't go far enough to 
unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct, terminate the 
illegal monopoly, deny Microsoft the fruits of its violation, and 
ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future.
    Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proceedings.
    John Sevey
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Kenosha, WI



MTC-00015090

From: Chris Holdredge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Displeasure with MS proposed settlement
    I'm an IT professional writing to my displeasure with the 
proposed settlement. Been in this business long enough to remember 
when there were a dozen or more operating systems and hundreds of 
viable application vendors. Surprisingly, that situation worked 
quite well, since interchange formats were de-facto standards shared 
by all. Now you can only expect your work to be usable by others if 
you use Microsoft's tools, and the latest versions at that, despite 
the fact that all that ever changes are the number of useless 
options on the menus, the file formats, and the pricing scheme. 
Please take serious, concrete action to restore real competition and 
innovation to the marketplace. Continuing with this slap-on-the-
wrist proposal will leave our of our nation's most important 
industries in the hands of a stagnating, unmotivated, dinosaur.



MTC-00015091

From: Alan F Larimer Jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Those Reading:
    I am very concerned with the proposed settlement. Microsoft 
``donating'' computers running M$ software is just furthering the 
monopoly. It does not properly address the reasons for the 
anticompetative practices. Address the issue of not releasing 
Application Program Interface (API) information. Issue one: Donation 
of computers. If M$ wishes to donate computers to the school 
systems, let them donate the hardware. DO NOT let them place their 
software on it. That would just be expanding their control 
anticompetively. Allow an alternative software company (such as Red 
Hat, Mandrake, SuSe, etc.) to provide the Operating System. This 
would encourage young students to look into alternatives.
    This would also allow more hardware to be purchased by M$ since 
they would not be paying for the software. Issue two: API release. 
In order for other software companies to develop software for use 
with M$ Operating Systems, the API must be released so that these 
companies can provide stable and reliable applications. This is 
maybe the cornerstone of the illegal practice in which M$ partakes.
    Releasing the APIs would not only assist other companies in 
making good, but could also help M$ to promote the vast resources 
available with their products.
    Allowing M$ to place its software on the computer without the 
option for other companies to provide software would be furthering 
the anticompetative practices. Forcing them to release APIs now and 
in the future would take a great bite out of the nature of there 
illegality. Don't allow M$ to continue such practices. Stop them 
now.
    --Alan
    Alan F Larimer Jr
    Personal Web Site
    See what my day is like
    AwFuL, Jr. Productions
    Build a man a fire, he will be warm for a day;
    Set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.



MTC-00015092

From: Iuri Fiedoruk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I know I'm not from USA, but this is a case that affects all 
globe, so I tought my opnion would be important. When I first read 
the proposed settlement, I tought it was good, but reading all 
little lines I saw soo many holes that in the end I tought nothing 
on it would actually work. I think the remedies agains Microsoft 
could be more harder, once it's products are getting higher prices 
and nothing on this settlement seems to do something against it to 
protect consumers, but if those remedies are going to be imposed, 
justice should be 100% sure that they will work and the company that 
created a monopoly and is trying to extend it will not use dark 
clausules to avoid them.
    Thanks for your precious time and sorry for my bad english.
    Iuri Fiedoruk, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil.



MTC-00015093

From: Randy Graebner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very bad idea. Please rethink it.
    Thanks,
    Randy Graebner

[[Page 26044]]

    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00015094

From: Metter, Steve
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bad idea. Very bad idea.



MTC-00015095

From: John C Meuser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to state my opinion that I believe that the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement is insufficiant to restrain the 
monolithic company in any way. Microsoft has a history of getting by 
loopholes and the proposed settlement leaves gigantic loopholes for 
them to use. If the settlement goes through, nothing will change, 
Microsoft will just find more creative ways to extend its monopoly. 
I am deeply ashamed of how the Department of Justice has allowed 
Microsoft to practice how it has for so long.
    John
    My PGP/GPG public key:
    http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x64C45A1D



MTC-00015096

From: F. Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:05am
Subject: Microsoft settlement--NOT ENOUGH REPARATIONS!
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Frances Simmons
    7521 NE Netherland Drive #215
    Fayetteville, NC 28303



MTC-00015097

From: Michael A. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    I have been following the progress of the DOJ's case against 
Microsoft Corp. in the technology press for some time.
    The proposed Settlement should be scrapped.
    The proposed Settlement is not in the best interests of the 
public and needs to be reworked. Two major flaws in the current 
settlement are
    1) insufficient penalty for a company guilty of illegal 
monopolistic practices, which will not deter Microsoft Corp from 
changing its behavior, and
    2) not enough safeguards to prevent Microsoft Corp. from 
continuing to lock in and trap current and future computer users. 
Thank you for your kind attention.
    Mike Miller
    [email protected] (Mike Miller)
    http://homepage.mac.com/mike_miller/



MTC-00015098

From: Kene Meniru
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02  8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I do not have the opportunity to follow the trial or read the 
documents comprehensively because of little time from my project but 
I feel I must say something.
    I find it very curious that the government is considering 
allowing Microsoft to extend their monopoly (by such things as 
providing computer related stuff to schools), something that the 
courts claim to have found them guilty of. Don't you know that 
Microsoft power comes from having many users?
    If you claim that we are in a community with a government we 
should respect as looking after our interest, please do what would 
be good for your citizens. I can tell you a story of how I bought my 
recent laptop in which I payed for a microsoft operating system even 
though I did not ask or want to keep it. This should be a free 
country and a free market but yet you know all this and you still 
consider to increase their influence.
    Please RECONSIDER this folly. We think highly of the government 
and would like to continue doing so.
    Sincerely,
    Kene Meniru
    Champlain, New York
    Kene Meniru
    [email protected]



MTC-00015099

From: Joakim Rosqvist
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I dislike the proposed settlement, as I think it will let 
Microsoft off the hook too easy.
    /Joakim Rosqvist



MTC-00015100

From: Kevin Verde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a computer industry professional, I must express my feelings 
about the proposed final judgment in the United States v. Microsoft 
case.
    This punishment is almost beneficial to Microsoft as it will 
increase its share of the education market (thus depriving even more 
technologies from entering this market).
    I suggest the punishment be fair, but strong. This proposal, as 
most computer professionals and media representatives agree, is a 
weak and meaningless punishment. It is a ``slap on the wrist''. As 
computers become more and more required for a person's survival 
(work and otherwise), we must not allow such predatory actions (of 
which the defendant has been shown to be guilty) to take place 
again.
    Sincerely,
    A concerned American citizen,
    Kevin Verde
    phone: +1 972 529 5899
    Frisco, Texas USA



MTC-00015101

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:07am
Subject: PFJ
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs 
The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs--
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to 
OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC 
systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.



MTC-00015102

From: Igor Khavkine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settelment
    The settlement in its current form is a very bad idea.
    It must not go through.
    Igor Khavkine



MTC-00015103

From: Steve Bullwinkel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I reject the proposed settlement with Microsoft as being 
inadequate and incomplete. I do not believe that it will overcome or 
redress the wrongs committed by Microsoft, which has operated as a 
monopoly far too long. Please review and implement the proposals 
found in Dan Kegel's excellent analysis found at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html Only with a comprehensive 
solution, strictly enforced, can we hope to restore competition to 
the PC industry.
    Thank You.
    Steven Bullwinkel, Oakland, New Jersey
    Managing Member, clear sky thunder, LLC
    [email protected]



MTC-00015104

From: Jeff Peiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.

[[Page 26045]]

    Thank you,
    Jeff Peiffer
    4525 Cascade Dr
    Powell, OH 43065



MTC-00015105

From: Michael Spencer Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement, for the reasons 
already outlined in Dan Kegel's comments as per http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Michael Spencer Jr.
    Council Bluffs, Iowa



MTC-00015106

From: P. T. Kornman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00015107

From: Hobart, Aaron
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I am writing to you in order to inform you of my dissatisfaction 
with the governments settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case.
    Little to nothing is being done to Microsoft in this case, and 
it is a shame. In my office there are a number of people who have 
installed windows new operating system, and have nothing but 
problems with it. They have no other option, because Microsoft goes 
out of their way to make sure that all software that the average 
home user will only work on their OS.
    The simple way to solve this is to open their source code, so 
that other people could make an operating system, or ther programs 
that would interface with programs written for windows.
    We are a government by the people, for the people, not for the 
corporations.
    Thank you.
    Aaron Hobart.



MTC-00015108

From: Mary Lou Nolan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: MSAG.doc.dot
Mary Lou H Nolan
4332 Davidson Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30319
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. I support Microsoft in this dispute and 
feel that this company is being wrongfully punished for being 
successful.
    This continuing legal battle is a waste of precious resources 
and money. I believe the settlement that was reached in November 
will serve in the best public interest.
    It is my understanding that under this agreement, Microsoft must 
share more information with other companies and follow procedures 
that will make it easier for other companies to compete.
    Microsoft has agreed to disclose for use by its competitors 
various interfaces that are internal to Windows'' operating system 
products. Microsoft has also agreed to make available any protocols 
implemented in Windows'' operating system. Additionally, Microsoft 
has agreed to design future versions of Windows to make it easier to 
install non- Microsoft software.
    This settlement is a thorough agreement that is sufficient to 
deal with the issues of this lawsuit.
    Please support this settlement. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Lou H. Nolan



MTC-00015109

From: Jason Parker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea.
    Jason Parker
    [email protected]



MTC-00015110

From: Bowers, Eric
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern;
    I would like to make the following comments regarding the 
Microsoft settlement.
    The PFJ erodes the Applications Barrier to Entry in two ways: 
First, by forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows. Secondly, by taking 
various measures to ensure that Windows allows the use of non-
Microsoft middleware. A third option not provided by the PFJ would 
be to make sure that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against 
non-Microsoft operating systems which implement the APIs needed to 
run application programs written for Windows.
    It is my opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment as written 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to 
continue, would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It 
should not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Eric Bowers
    PC Support Specialist
    Cooper Bussmann, Black Mountain, NC
    Phone: 828-669-6482 ext. 180
    The opinions expressed are mine and not necessarily those of 
Cooper Bussman, Inc.



MTC-00015111

From: Matthew Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. 
The proposed settlement does nothing to punish Microsoft for 
blatantly unfair business practices and if they are not punished, 
they will continue such practices as they have demonstrated with the 
latest version of Windows (XP). At the bank I work for, we tested 
Windows XP in our enterprise and determined that we did not want to 
implement it. We put Windows 98 and Windows 2000 workstation on our 
network. We occasionally need to change a workstation from Windows 
2000 to Windows 98 for software compatibility. If our enterprise 
license was for either Windows 98 or Windows 2000, we would have to 
purchase an additional license each time a workstation has their 
operating system changed. Since we purchase a Windows XP license for 
every workstation, we can put any Microsoft operating system we want 
onto the workstation. Thus, we have to purchase a product we DON'T 
WANT in order to keep within Microsoft's demands.
    Microsoft has and continues to engage in an embrace, extend and 
eliminate form of competition. When a competitor comes up with a 
good idea, Microsoft will first attempt to purchase the idea from 
the competitor or purchase the competitor itself. If that is not 
possible, they will build a competing product, extend the format 
and/or protocols used and eventually make it proprietary. At this 
point, given that Microsoft's APIs are not well documented except 
for inside of Microsoft, another party would have a difficult time 
building a competing product due to software's ``barrier to entry''.
    Recently, Microsoft blocked nearly all competing web browsers 
from Microsoft Network web properties. If there wasn't such a public 
outcry, I believe they would not have corrected this problem. 
Microsoft will do everything in it's power to create or extend their 
monopoly in any business line they are involved in.
    Please, punish Microsoft for their unfair business practices, 
don't reward them by what is essentially forcing them entry into a 
market they have thus far been unable to penetrate. Open their APIs, 
open their source code, break them up into smaller companies, each 
with their ENTIRE line of software products. At least this will 
ensure some sort of competition in the software and operating system 
market.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Miller



MTC-00015112

From: Wes Price
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case 
is woefully inadequate--most of the problems which the settlements 
purports to address have already been resolved by Microsoft's abuse 
of its monopolistic influence on the software industry, and it 
ignores (and may even foster) new problems which have sprung up in 
their place. As one example, the exclusionary license which is built 
in to Micrsoft's Enterprise Agreement subscription plan will go a 
long way towards reducing the ability of anyone to compete with 
Microsoft, making it impossible for anyone to break ranks without 
costing their company hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
``discounts''--once a

[[Page 26046]]

company subscribes, Microsoft will own their future.
    The lack of any penalty for what even the courts agreed was 
substantial, intentional anticompetitive behavior on Microsoft's 
part, coupled with the lack of any structural remedy which would 
inhibit Microsoft from engaging in similar behavior in the future, 
renders this ``solution'' practically worthless-- Microsoft will 
continue to crowd out products which are technologically superior 
for exactly as long as it is allowed full, unfettered access to a 
computer's operating system *and* web browser *and* office 
application suite.
    I am politically conservative, but I cannot support this 
administration's disgraceful attempt to conciliate the Microsoft 
machine at my expense--the administration's gall in claiming that 
the proposed solution will do anything substantive to change or 
limit Microsoft's de facto monopoly is only exceeded by Microsoft's 
gall in continuing to stamp out innovation and competition while on 
trial for those selfsame actions.
    Wes Price



MTC-00015113

From: BJ Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  11:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the 
current settlement proposed in the Microsoft antitrust case. I 
believe that the settlement should see Microsoft punished for its 
anti-competetive practices, as well as open up the market to 
competition. Forcing Microsoft to document all their APIs used by 
the Windows operating system and associated software packages should 
certainly be one of the requirements. The current settlement 
proposed does not do this. Thank you for your consideration.
    Regards, Brandon Mitchell
    [email protected]



MTC-00015114

From: Nathaniel Woody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case 
very disconcerting. The most obvious problems that I see are that 
the disclosure of API's by microsoft(which I believe would be a 
``good thing'') seem to be rather weakly worded. It would appear 
from the way the settlement is worded that there are several 
loopholes by which Microsoft would be able to prevent usefull access 
to the API's that non-microsoft developers would need. The security 
wording appears very dangerous and appears to allow Microsoft to be 
able to prevent the distribution of any API's that Microsoft finds 
most important.
    Microsoft has proven in the past a willingness to find and 
exploit loopholes and this seems to provide a rather easy one. The 
second serious problem I see is the idea of Microsoft paying the 
expected fines by providing software to schools. This sounds like a 
good idea on the face, but I see two major problems.
    First distributing software costs Microsoft essentially nothing. 
T! he only real costs that could be attributed to this are the 
production costs of the CD's and manuals. The schools that would 
receive this were not planning on buying Microsoft products so there 
can be no argued loss of revenue and so the worth of software 
license is arguable at best. The second problem is that the 
education market has always been dominated by Apple, particularly 
the Macintosh now. This provides an excellent way for Microsoft to 
attack a competitor to their monopoly while paying off monopoly 
fines.
    This whole idea amounts to paying a fine with software license 
play money. I believe Ralph Nader's essay does a far better job 
addressing these problems then I can so I will not talk of these any 
further.
    The final problem that I have with the settlement is that there 
seems to be far too much reliance on good-will practices from 
Microsoft to prevent further monopoply problems. I have seen little 
evidence to suggest that Microsoft takes the attitude that they a! 
re being watched by someone and so most behave better. Instead there 
seems to be a regular stream litigation both from and againts 
Microsoft. I do not see how the proposed settlement would in any 
meaningful way restrict the actions of Microsoft without an internal 
attitude change. Evidence that Microsoft wishes to maintain it's 
monopoly appears in their current lawsuit against LindowsOS. Lindows 
proposes to be a new OS that is capable of running Microsoft apps as 
well as linux apps(hence the name!). They are being sued by 
Microsoft for trademark violation. This despite the the plethora of 
(non-windows competing) apps that incorporate ``win'' or ``windows'' 
into their name(winzip, winrar,winamp,etc). However, Microsoft 
instead resorts only to attacking potential competitors.
    I hope this statement provides some of the reasons why I am so 
disappointed in the proposed settlement. This email was written and 
is sent on behalf of the Chemometrics Research Group at the 
University of Delaware. I include their names below:
    Nate Woody
    Tony Myles
    Rob Feduale
    Huwei Tan
    Thank you for the oppurtunity to voice our opinion.



MTC-00015115

From: jrp inthehouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I do not believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%).
    This must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before 
regulation is lifted.
    I am sending this email by Microsoft Hotmail, on a Windows 98 
machine, in a fully Windows office. I support the company, but I 
strongly believe that Microsoft's repeated use and abuse of their 
overwhelmingly controlling monopoly has hurt my business (MS-DOS, 
Forcing computer manufacturers to pre-install OS, Internet Explorer, 
et al), and my future, by the sheer fact that I cannot choose any 
other OS. My freedom to pick and choose the most competent and 
advanced Operating System has been taken away from me by the de 
facto standard that Microsoft employs. All of this has been shown in 
a court of law. Microsoft has been shown guilty; therefore Microsoft 
should face the consequences.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Introduction of WinXP (full of 
bugs and premature to avoid DOJ injunction), the upcoming .NET 
initiative, and the continual use of economics of scale, to this day 
hamper competition. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of 
severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy 
that I can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return 
to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    J Randolph Plemel
    3405 Telford Ave
    APT 201
    Cincinnati, OH 45220
    513.227.5681



MTC-00015116

From: Russell Goyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement . . . 
    ... is awful as it stands.
    I do not support it.
    Russell Goyder



MTC-00015117

From: Randy Morrow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not let this settlement move to completion.
    The government must find a new remedy to this situation. The 
consumer will feel the effects of this if Microsoft of is allowed to 
continue with it's current business practices.
    Randy Morrow



MTC-00015118

From: Alan MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea, guys.



MTC-00015119

From: Steven P. Cornett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I am writing you to register my disdain over the proposed 
settlement of the

[[Page 26047]]

Department of Justice anti-trust case against Microsoft. Having 
followed this issue from the beginning, I believe that Microsoft is 
the most shameless and unrepentent monopolist since AT&T and 
Standard Oil, and yet the ``settlement,'' for perhaps ``sellout'' or 
``carpet sweeping'' would be a better term for it, gives a wink and 
a nod to them to continue to drive all competition out of every 
segment of the information industry.
    The worst part of this settlement is that your attorney's, while 
making statements to the press about ``seeking relief for unlawful 
behavior'', did nothing of the sort and had to *know* that they did 
nothing of the sort. This still allows Microsoft to keep its 
operating systems and office software operations in one company, 
keeps the API (the system calls needed to interface to Windows) 
safely in Bill Gates'' back pocket, and allows them to expand their 
monopoly into any segment of the computing industry they do not 
already have dominence over and to use the strategies they've used 
to lock in the PC industry.
    I'm sure you heard from many, including I suspect many Microsoft 
sycophants chanting about ``freedom to innovate,'' as well as many 
others. However, this issue is not about innovation; if this 
settlement goes through innovation is the *last* thing that will 
happen in the information industry for a long time to come. 
Therefore I am asking you to reject this ``settlement'' and 
formulate a punishment that fits the crime, and truly gives relief 
to the industry that has been damaged by the expanding Microsoft 
monopoly.
    Yours Truly
    Steven P. Cornett
    [email protected]



MTC-00015120

From: Matt Burke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Hello,
    I would like to say that I oppose the settlement because it 
leaves open the possibility for many APIs to remain undocumented, if 
they are listed as ``only the interfaces between Microsoft 
Middleware and Microsoft Windows'' (Kegel). This seems like a loop-
hole which will continue to prevent people who do not work for or 
contract with Microsoft from writing software which will tie-in well 
with the various Windows operating systems.
    One example is remote applications. While Unix platforms employ 
the MIT X-Window system to allow gui applications to be 
interactively served over a network, the best Windows equivalent, 
VNC (by AT&T), is hideously slow and useless for serious work. The 
VNC website attributes blame for this in question 50 of the FAQ (at 
http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/faq.html#q50): ``Because Windows 
gives us fewer hints about what it's doing, and because we don't 
have the source code for Windows in the same way that we do for X, 
the WinVNC server has to work harder to find out what's changed, and 
so a really fast machine should make a big speed difference.'' The 
Linux version runs at a far higher speed on much slower hardware, 
due to the full availability of the display API used by Linux.
    Please do not approve this settlement, as the most important 
aspect of it (API openness) is fatally flawed.
    Thank you,
    Matt Burke



MTC-00015121

From: Alan MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    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''
    So, basically, they can develop a proprietary system, closed to 
competitors, and not have to tell them how it works when they have 
it represented ubiquitously on peoples desktops.
    Hello? Competition?
    rgds
    Alan



MTC-00015122

From: Kevin Vargo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    In today's society, technology is becoming more and more 
pervasive. Entering, and to some degree structuring, all aspects of 
daily life. As a Computer Science student, and now as a Computer 
Programmer professionally, I have a great deal of experience with 
the software/computer industry. I have recently graduated from Case 
Western Reserve University, and as a recent graduate, you can be 
assured that I have surveyed the field to find a company for which I 
would like to work. One which supports growth in the field as well 
as an acceptable pay range. The single greatest asset to my learning 
has been the Linux/Open Source movement. While I work for a company 
that prides itself on it's patents, I fully recognize the gains and 
pitfalls accompanying both. I feel that puts me in a decent position 
to make an educated suggestion on the current topic.
    It is --integral-- to the future of this field that a wise, far-
reaching and Non-Political decision is made. For anyone who has any 
knowledge of the case, Microsofts blatant disregard for any laws or 
ethics (doctored video tape, etc) would cause any normal case to 
become speedily resolved. Why is this not the case for Microsoft? 
Unfortunately, I do not have any idea. This decision could very well 
change the entire face of the computer industry. Forever. I don't 
mean 10-years forever. I mean forever. Just as in research into 
Chemistry or Biology, so is research into Computer Science. The 
problem, however, is that Computer Science is not as well delineated 
into industry segments. Development of new methods and new 
proceedures occurs throughout the industry, regardless of labs and 
R&D plants.
    Stifiling such growth is detrimental to the entire technology 
industry. A monopoly stiffles new growth. Microsoft has been found 
guilty, in a court of law, of maintaining their monopoly on the 
Operating Systems market. None of this has been disputed. The terms 
of the settlement, however, do absolutely nothing to change this 
situation.
    Nothing.
    There are several points which need to be addressed. The current 
grip on OEM providers needs to be addressed. To this end, 
Microsoft's licensing schemes need to be overseen, and further 
regulated. It is not enough, by virtue of Microsoft's own failure to 
respect Governmental Authority, to ask them to be nice. This has 
failed time and again. The choice of recieving a computer, etc, 
without the operating system of Microsoft needs to be enforced. A 
consumer purchasing a new system very rarely has the opportunity to 
do so--and Microsoft leverages their considerable monopoly to ensure 
that this remains the case. We have all seen the battle played out 
with various large-scale computer producers.
    Microsoft should be forced to compete fairly and ethically with 
all comers. This should take the form of releasing specifications 
that are true-to-fact, up-to-date and follow the course of ``the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'' in restrictive 
language so that Microsoft cannot continue to hide functionality or 
mislead people about the nature of their software. This should be 
enforced on both the APIs of software for the Operating System, as 
well as the file formats for such things as Microsoft Word, Money, 
etc.
    In no way does a quick settlement aid any consumers. In no way 
is a quick settlement a matter which ensures domestic tranquility or 
national security. However, a well determined and thought out 
solution which forces a company, proven in court of law to be in 
breach of Anti-trust law, proven time and again in the judicial 
world to be unethical and completely disregarding of the authority 
of the courts (doctored video) which ensures the possibility for 
continued growth throughout the industry, to the aid and betterment 
of all consumers is a matter which could result in domestic 
tranquility and national security. In todays world, economy makes a 
country. Microsoft controls technology which controls a great deal 
of manufacture and industry in this country. The effects are far 
reaching and deep.
    Please, I implore you as a consumer in the field, a professional 
in the field, and as an enthusiast in the field, do not fail to make 
an appropriately corrective conclusion to this penalty phase. Ensure 
that Microsoft is legally bound, with heavy penalties that are 
without gray area, to compete fairly, according to the laws of this 
nation. To do otherwise would be to fail utterly, and render the 
courts decision about the illegality of maintaining a monopoly 
utterly meaningless. That is what is at stake.
    Please take the time to consider.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Vargo

[[Page 26048]]



MTC-00015123

From: Yodster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the Microsoft settlement is fair. Microsoft is 
getting away with far too little a punishment.
    Therefor I wish to file a complaint stating that the settlement 
is a bad idea.



MTC-00015124

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to register my concern and disapproval with the 
proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement. I do not believe the 
proposed remedies will be adequate to deter or prevent future 
antitrust behavior.
    An effective settlement will need to be more forceful to in 
preventing or detering unfair business practices. This could include 
breaking the company into an operating system company, a development 
tools company, and a package software company.
    Jeff Jensen
    11555 N. 60 St.
    Omaha, NE 68152



MTC-00015125

From: Charles Barilleaux
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi!
    A am an IT professional, and a computing enthusist. In short, I 
regard myself as a ``geek,'' though it does afford me a comfortable 
living.
    I wanted to voice my support of the settlement with Microsoft. 
It is time to get past that. While the creation of a standard 
platform may have been a battle that went above and beyond the 
principle of ``all's fair in love and war,'' it did create a 
standard. In the net, I feel that having a standard is good for 
consumers, commerce, and the economy at large.
    Thank you,
    Charles Barilleaux
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00015126

From: Lawrence, Daniel G.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My biggest problem with the proposed settlement is that it is 
not strict enough.
    Have you read the recent .NET license agreement? It basically 
says that developers release FULL RIGHTS to Microsoft for ANY code 
developed using .NET. Basically, it means that microsoft will OWN 
the internet . . .  if they can push people to use .NET's ASP2 
functionality. If you're not technically saavy, Windows 2000 and ASP 
are far slower and less stable than BSD and PHP, but Microsoft has 
leading share; this smacks of powerful influence. When the influence 
of a company can be used in such a way as to LAY CLAIM TO ALL CODE, 
I believe that the company should be regulated as a monopoly.
    -Daniel



MTC-00015127

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I oppose the proposed settlement because it will not be 
effective in preventing Microsoft from the behavior deemed illegal 
by the Court of Appeals. Microsoft will merely stop their current 
practices and take up new ones which have the same effect.
    The only remedies that will be effective are those that prevent 
Microsoft from engaging in the tactic known as ``ace and 
Extend''.[1] I think the remedies proposed by the Free Software 
Foundation[2] would prevent Microsoft from engaing in ``Embrace and 
Extend'' and would enable competitors to compete technically with 
Microsoft, while not preventing Microsoft from innovating. These 
remedies are:
    1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats.
    2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field of software.
    3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published.
    Thank you.
    --- Vladimir
    I am a U.S. citizen.
    [1] Microsoft is well known for its ``embrace and extend'' 
strategy, in which it adds elements to popular technologies to bind 
users to its version of the technologies.
    --http://www.salon.com/tech/log/2000/05/11/slashdot--censor/
    [2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Vladimir G. Ivanovic
    2770 Cowper St.
    Palo Alto, CA 94306-2447
    http://leonora.org/vladimir
    [email protected]
    +1 650 678 8014



MTC-00015128

From: Rand Partridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Anti-
trust case. Continue litigating, to obtain a more competitive 
computing industry that will truly benefit consumers.
    Rand Partridge
    Rand Partridge, Ph.D.
    Social Science Department
    [email protected]



MTC-00015129

From: Gerald (Jerry) Rudolph
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement will cause harm to the software 
industry.
    Gerald Rudolph, PhD
    1038 Corley Mill Road
    Lexington, SC 29072



MTC-00015131

From: Peter Stephen Erskine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  5:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please may I say that I feel the proposed settlement is very 
unsatisfactory for the public. Microsoft have recently demonstrated 
dishonesty and predatory anticompetitive practices in the Corel 
case. They destroyed competing software completely (all the Corel 
office products) by shutting down Corel.
    By offering to give Microsoft-based computers to schools they 
are magnifying their existing monopoly grip. School pupils need to 
learn other operating systems and languages--those such as Java and 
C++ which are designed from the outset to work with ALL computing 
environments. If you let schools have Microsoft stuff, its designed 
to NOT WORK with other platforms. This is pretty useless nowadays as 
the decent servers are Unix based.
    Microsofts monopoly over users desktops has all but strangled 
innovation in computer science.
    They have not done anything innovative since 1992 (and even that 
was questionable as all the concepts were stolen).
    Peter Erskine



MTC-00015132

From: John Mignault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an American citizen, I urge you to reconsider the all too 
insufficent remedies proposed in the pending settlement with 
Microsoft. Microsoft is a dangerous monopoly that has stifled true 
innovation and competition in the software marketplace for years. 
Its products enjoy no higher endorsement than volume; they are 
thoughtless mediocrities designed with barely sufficient 
functionality in order to quickly capture market share and entrap 
users in a endless cycle of upgrades. These upgrades supposedly fix 
problems in software that should not have been present at the time 
of purchase. To ask that the consumer continue to pay for such 
repairs borders on fraud.
    I ask you to reconsider the settlement to ensure that Microsoft 
is unable to continue its shameful victimization of the software 
industry.



MTC-00015133

From: Charles R. Tersteeg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it is a bad idea.
    Have a 3rd party without Microsoft, draft one. Maybe guys from 
IBM, AT&T, RedHat, and Mac could form a committee and have a 
settlement or I say nothave them pay.



MTC-00015134

From: Brad Garcia
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the settlement does enough to punish Microsoft. 
Nor does it seem to do

[[Page 26049]]

enough to encourage competition. I'm afraid that this settlement 
will do little to change Microsoft's current predatory business 
practices.
    I have read through the settlement, as well as several essays 
that others have written analyzing the settlement. I will be signing 
my name to one of the better ones I have read.
    Sincerely,
    Brad Garcia



MTC-00015135

From: Rob Compton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would just like to voice my opinion that I feel the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is not in the best interest of the people and 
in fact help Microsoft more than encourage it to not practice 
predatory behavior in the future.
    As a systems manager in an educational system the thought of a 
company taking used computers and software that it makes inflating 
the value of both and giving it to schools who may need different 
tools, resources, or money does not seem helpful. Not only does it 
give Microsoft inroads into a market it has not been able to 
dominate, but it allows the company to ``buy out'' of its settlement 
for pennies on the dollar.
    Microsoft has proved that it has no intention of changing its 
behavior by ignoring previous court orders. The only way to stop 
this kind of behavior is to completely change its corporate 
structure, as for how to do this ? I don't have a complete answer 
for this. I would suggest much smaller independent companies being 
formed from the whole that is Microsoft.
    If my views or opinions can be of further assistance to you feel 
free to contact me. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice 
my feelings in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C Compton
    Projects Manager, Arts & Sciences Computing
    Washington University, in St. Louis
    314.935.5684



MTC-00015136

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settlement is bad for people but good for microsoft.
    Say NO!!!!!



MTC-00015137

From: Jim Tatz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is TOO kind to Microsoft.



MTC-00015138

From: L. Michael Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO to the Microsoft settlement
    Even after being found guilty of being a monopoly, Microsoft's 
behavior has not changed.
    Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will work.
    Microsoft must be required to all consumers to use any and all 
software that suits their needs and not force us into using 
Microsoft software.
    L. Michael Roberts



MTC-00015139

From: Softguides
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft Settlement is the WRONG approach and is a 
VERY BAD IDEA
    Please rethink and take account of testimonies not only of 
individuals but of companies and technologies damaged by 
malpractice, such as Apple's Quicktime.



MTC-00015140

From: Jeff Amfahr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I do not 
feel it properly address the actions of Microsoft, nor that it 
allows for proper enforcement of the proposed actions. I would 
strongly encourage you to look at far more aggressive and punishable 
actions in order to correct their egress behavior. Thank you.
    Jeff Amfahr



MTC-00015141

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO! The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Vote it down! 
Microsoft is strangling the world of Information Technology. Set 
things right now!
    -Tom Leber
    Wyndmoor, PA
    [email protected]



MTC-00015142

From: Martin E O'Mara
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:14am
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 proposed 
Microsoft settlement. As a small business owner who services home 
office and small office computers, I find many Microsoft's licensing 
practices for computer owners into products they neither need nor 
want (such as Internet Explorer and Outlook).
    It is my wish that the not accept the current settlement.
    Thank you,
    Martin O'Mara
    PCright, Inc.
    2006 Old Greenbrier Rd.
    Ste 1-D
    Chesapeake, VA 23320
    757-424-3926



MTC-00015143

From: Hotmale
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea! Please do not 
allow the biggest thieves in history to get away with it!



MTC-00015144

From: Ken Beyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this email to voice my opinion under the Tunney Act 
about the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I feel the settlement is a disgrace to American business and 
free competition as a whole, and will result in Microsoft returning 
to their ways of being monopolistic and to crushing competitive 
threats and open ideas.
    I feel the company should have been penalized harsher and should 
have been split up, and even some executives should have served some 
jail time. Microsoft must open it's APIs to all developers well in 
advance of major releases of their operating systems and development 
tools. By not doing so, they clearly have an unfair advantage to 
develop superior products in advance of competitors as well as 
allowing businesses they so choose to have the same advantages.
    The free market, not Microsoft, should be able to decide the 
fate of emerging technologies.
    As I read the settlement (note that I'm not a lawyer, nor do I 
have 20 hours to wade through 100's of pages of documents), I also 
feel that there are no provisions in place to closely monitor 
Microsoft from returning to their ways. I feel that there should be 
people dedicated to this effort--to watch them like a hawk, so 
unfair practices don't return.
    For what it's worth, I went on an interview at MicroWarehouse, 
and I asked why they deploy all their server stuff on Microsoft. 
They said because Microsoft gives them freebies to use, and why 
should they not take advantage of that rather than go buy stuff from 
Sun, HP, etc. They said that if they help push Microsoft products, 
they get the kickbacks. This little tidbit I learned, along with 
having to buy a PC with Microsoft products bundled on it has very 
much annoyed me!! Then there's the whole squashing of Netscape, and 
other strong tactics of buying up competitive threats.
    It's quite annoying to see Microsoft basically get off ``scott 
free'' with this settlement. But more importantly, I envision that 
over time the world will continue to be Microsoft dominated and will 
control innovations through continued strong-arm tactics and 
illegal/crafty partnerships. America deserves better than that . . . 
 we deserve to have open and fair competition in the software 
marketplace.
    --
    Ken Beyer
    Software Developer--Metatec International, Inc.
    32 Highland Dr.
    Jackson, NJ 08527

[[Page 26050]]



MTC-00015145

From: Perkins, Dennis
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    One problem with Microsoft is that they change their document 
formats and API's with every release. Rather than requiring them to 
make a version of Office available for Linux, require them to 
publish the document formats for Word and Excel, and the networking 
protocol for SMB, as well as for any open standard they have 
modified, such as Kerberos. Require that this be done concurrent 
with, or prior to the product release. This would make it possible 
for companies and governments to standardize their systems on 
standards instead of on Microsoft products.



MTC-00015146

From: Jeffrey A Angielski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a very bad idea and does 
nothing to stop the monopoly that Microsoft has on the software 
industry.



MTC-00015147

From: Horanburg, Chadd (ISS Southfield)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to voice my opinion over the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. Too many times has Microsoft used it's power and money 
to do whatever it wants, it's time that we sent a message and made 
them pay for their crimes. Chadd
    Chadd M. Horanburg
    Internet Security Systems
    Managed Intrusion Detection Systems,
    Intrusion Detection Technician
    3000 Town Center Dr
    Suite 1100
    Southfield, MI 48075
    P. 877-563-8739 F. 248-352-0301
    [email protected]



MTC-00015148

From: arthur foelsche
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a really really bad idea. It totally 
fails to deal with the issue at stake and does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from doing anything in the future. Please do not allow 
Microsoft to get away with their practicies



MTC-00015149

From: Ajay Shekhawat
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I am vehemently opposed to any settlement with Microsoft Corp. 
which allows them to walk away without paying severe fines, and 
without reforming their ways. Microsoft should be punished severely, 
just like any person would in such a case.
    Please do NOT settle with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Ajay Shekhawat
    Buffalo, NY



MTC-00015150

From: Paul Varga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm somewhat bewildered with by how the current actions are 
going to prevent Microsoft from continuing to bully the market, 
expand its monopoly to new ones, and trample innovation.
    Being a programmer, I have to keep an eye on this situation more 
than most. Some of the arguments that I've read that I agree with 
restrict the following areas:
--For better or for worse Microsoft's software has become largely 
dominant. The business market was taken more than most. To free this 
entrapped market the easiest solution appears to be releasing the 
source code to Microsoft's file loading and saving routines. Failing 
this, a full tried-and-true set of documentation would help. Some of 
this source code would be in the Windows API, which should be 
considered for opening as well. In either case, updated source code 
or documentation should also be released in upcoming years to 
maintain the effectiveness of this measure. Doing this would 
alleviate issues with Word Processors, Spread Sheets, Presentation, 
and Audio/Visual Multimedia formats. That's a large effect for 
seamingly such a small change.
--Although this is less often thought of the network protocols 
behind Windows and much of Microsoft's software is a barrier at 
least as large as Microsoft's file formats. The already existant 
formats are largely conquered by independent and inquiring minds. 
The one exception that I know of is Microsoft's DirectPlay, part of 
DirectX. The protocol documentation behind this released to the 
public as well.
    However, that does not protect the future. Microsoft should be 
barred from writing protocols that are not open and standardized by 
internation bodies in the future. Making this enactment retroactive 
(applying to all existant protocols) would also aid our efforts to 
make the work seamless and give people choice.
--Microsoft should not be able to so easily bundle its products with 
new computers that are sold. Not only would this give a chance to 
competing operating systems, it would lower the effectiveness of 
Microsoft's ``bundle to make dominant'' strategy with its Windows 
included products.
    Thank you for your time,
    Paul Varga



MTC-00015151

From: faisal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read over the proposed Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT 
in favor of it, in its current state. The settlement does not, in 
any way, penalize Microsoft for its past infringements of the law. 
For many years, OEMs have been under control of this corporation, 
and simply ``formalizing'' this law in a document is not enough. 
Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and must now be 
held accountable in some measure. The current proposed settlement is 
unacceptable. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Faisal Rahman
    6118 breezewood ct #102
    greenbelt, md 20770



MTC-00015152

From: Mike Spenard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi, I am a computer software engineer and I would just like to 
voice my opinion that the microsoft settlement in my eyes will make 
things worse. From what has been settled apon it would make such 
(free) software projects such as Samba illegal or what not. This is 
a grave injustance for the computing community.
    thanks
    Mike Spenard
    Signull technologies.



MTC-00015153

From: Brent Laminack
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'm opposed to the Proposed Microsoft Settlement on a number of 
points. First, let me state that I work part-time as an instructor 
at the Georgia Institute of Technology's College of Computing. I 
have twenty years experience in the computer field.
    To summarize my objections, the proposed settlement simply 
doesn't give other software companies enough information to compete. 
The proposed settlement opens up some ``middleware'' APIs. This is 
simply inadequate. In order to be truly effective, the settlement 
must require Microsoft to open all APIs and file formats for all 
their products, along with all hardware interface specifications 
they exchage with hardware manufacturers. Microsoft must also 
provide these APIs and interfaces to everyone who wants them. The 
current settlement allows Microsoft to provide these only to 
companies that they deem to be a viable business. Therein lies the 
proverbial Catch-22. Without the APIs and hardware interfaces, no 
other company could ever become a viable business.
    One other note, the three-person oversight committee must be 
made of people selected by Microsoft competitors, not Microsoft. 
Otherwise Microsoft becomes its own policeman.
    In short, I believe the proposed settlement does essentially 
nothing break up the Microsoft monopoly and relieve the consumer.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Brent Laminack ([email protected])



MTC-00015154

From: Clark Nova
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am

[[Page 26051]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Wednesday January 23, 05:36AM
    I'm writing this email under the auspice of the Tunney Act, and 
to give voice to my long standing concern that Microsoft has, and 
continues to act as a criminal, monopolist empire, and will do so in 
the future if appropriate action is not taken.
    The foundations of Microsoft's corporate structure were laid on 
the work of countless, unsung programmers it defrauded, scammed, and 
conned into writing system components for them under contract and 
then used legal and financial leverage to break these contracts, 
leaving their developers penniless.
    Microsoft has been sued successfully for using the copyrighted 
code from other systems, so this is not in dispute. By stealing the 
best that countless fine minds had to offer, by strong-arming PC 
distributors into exclusionary contracts, and by exploiting 
prejudice and promoting ignorance, Microsoft built a commercial 
empire that threatens to cheapen, if not demolish some of the 
greater technological strides made in the last two decades.
    It is my belief, born of years of the observation of trends in 
the computing industry, that Microsoft is quietly plotting to turn 
the personal computer, an instrument with the power to change human 
thought, work, and life for the better, to make mankind smarter as 
it were, into a sort of complex version of the television. Instead 
of the information processing power of commercial PC systems 
belonging to their owners, Microsoft is pre-emptively taking control 
of the consumer PC and turning it into a sort of super-marketing 
engine, designed to gather and disseminate ever more personal data, 
and bombard computer users with ever more sophisticated advertising. 
Indeed, aspects of this plan can already be seen in the latest 
editions of Microsoft operating systems. ESPECIALLY their XP 
operating system, which was rushed in development and released early 
for no other reason than to evade your court's justice.
    These ``features'' detract from, and degrade computer 
performance in much the same way that a gasoline company would 
weaken the performance of your car by bolting heavy billboards to 
the side of it. Microsoft partnerships with hardware developers like 
Intel (often thought of as Microsoft's partner in crime by members 
of the engineering world) only further expedite this process of 
degrading our valuable technology. The American people should not 
have to fight this insidious, deliberate trend. Indeed, it shouldn't 
even be an issue. However, the greed, corruptibility, and maniacal 
disregard for the public good of a few powerful men has forced us 
into this position.
    It is my understanding that the anti-trust laws that Microsoft 
has been successfully prosecuted under were written with the primary 
intent of dissolving the mob-like power of the meatpacking and steel 
producing conglomerates of the early part of the last century. The 
context may have changed but the struggle is the same. These laws 
were not designed to deliver a slap on the wrist to the offenders. 
They were written to break utterly the stranglehold that these 
companies had on large segments of the American working and 
purchasing population. Please, do not beat the aging sword into a 
useless flyswatter. I implore your court to render a judgment that 
cripples Microsoft's power to aggrandize it's own corporate edifice 
at the expense of the public good. A few suggestions toward 
achieving this end within the power of your court:
    1. That Microsoft be barred from making exclusive license 
agreements that limit the freedom of PC distributors to sell 
competing software and operating systems.
    2. That Microsoft be barred from ``integrating'' non-essential 
software packages such as browsers and email clients into their 
operating systems. Indeed, it may be most practical to simply wrest 
the research and development parts of the company that design non-
essential software away from the parent, and require that they 
operate autonomously.
    3. That Microsoft be required to release their windows source 
code, or at least the technical developer's information for it into 
the public domain. as it stands, the proprietary secrecy that 
enshrouds their code does not act to protect a highly advanced 
technology from usurpation. Microsoft's operating systems are 
actually notorious for being the BOTTOM of the industry's standards. 
No. The only thing that is protected by the cloak of secrecy that 
surrounds the cores of their operating systems is Microsoft's power 
to control of who is, and who is not allowed to develop software for 
their systems.
    4. That Microsoft be required to pay restitution to its 
defrauded developers, and that a standing judicial panel be formed 
to arbitrate the thousands of potential claims that this action 
would engender. Please take these words to heart. There has been 
rumor that Microsoft is using this same Tunney Act avenue to canvas 
your court with it's own propaganda. This is sure to confuse, 
confound, and further weaken any action that might be taken against 
them. Microsoft is a criminal commercial empire and always has been. 
Its aim is further concentration of financial capital and computing 
power into itself, and it has little to no regard for the welfare of 
the computer-reliant public.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel L. Swartzendruber



MTC-00015155

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: No to Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Microsoft's proposed settlement is a slap in the face of 
American justice.
    Kenneth J. Horton
    Indian Harboun Beach, Florida 32937



MTC-00015156

From: Matt Christoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. A breakup is the only solution to 
restore competition. There can be no effective solution that doesn't 
solve the problem of the operating systems complexities being 
withheld from competing companies who create windows software. These 
competing companies are always at a hopeless disadvantage. They 
attempt to compete against the hand that can choose to feed them the 
information they need to compete, or not to feed them the 
information. What would anyone do in Microsoft's situation? Not give 
the potential competitor the information they need to successfully 
compete with Microsoft of course. With their regular abuse of this 
power which is decidedly in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, 
Microsoft's software invariably comes out looking superior when in 
fact, if they had not withheld the information, they would be on 
equal footing with other companies developing business solutions, 
and would no longer be able to create the illusion of superior 
workmanship and innovation. But why would a corporation whose 
primary concern is the bottom line share that information?
    They will not.



MTC-00015157

From: Paul Varga
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm somewhat bewildered with by how the current actions are 
going to prevent Microsoft from continuing to bully the market, 
expand its monopoly to new ones, and trample innovation.
    Being a programmer, I have to keep an eye on this situation more 
than most. Some of the arguments that I've read that I agree with 
restrict the following areas:
--For better or for worse Microsoft's software has become largely 
dominant. The business market was taken more than most. To free this 
entrapped market the easiest solution appears to be releasing the 
source code to Microsoft's file loading and saving routines. Failing 
this, a full tried-and-true set of documentation would help. Some of 
this source code would be in the Windows API, which should be 
considered for opening as well. In either case, updated source code 
or documentation should also be released in upcoming years to 
maintain the effectiveness of this measure. Doing this would 
alleviate issues with Word Processors, Spread Sheets, Presentation, 
and Audio/Visual Multimedia formats. That's a large effect for 
seamingly such a small change.
--Although this is less often thought of the network protocols 
behind Windows and much of Microsoft's software is a barrier at 
least as large as Microsoft's file formats. The already existant 
formats are largely conquered by independent and inquiring minds. 
The one exception that I know of is Microsoft's DirectPlay, part of 
DirectX. The protocol documentation behind this released to the 
public as well. However, that does not protect the future. Microsoft 
should be barred from writing protocols that are not open and 
standardized by internation bodies in the future. Making this 
enactment retroactive (applying to all existant protocols) would 
also aid our efforts to make the work seamless and give people 
choice.

[[Page 26052]]

--Microsoft should not be able to so easily bundle its products with 
new computers that are sold. Not only would this give a chance to 
competing operating systems, it would lower the effectiveness of 
Microsoft's ``bundle to make dominant'' strategy with its Windows 
included products.
    Thank you for your time,
    Paul Varga



MTC-00015158

From: (126) (b)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until 
its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, 
assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%).
    This must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before 
regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Matt Turnipseed
    0134 Rutherford Hall
    Athens, GA 30609



MTC-00015159

From: Daniel Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is bad and should not be 
accepted.



MTC-00015160

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good morning,
    I work as a consultant developing Microsoft Windows 
applications. In the past, I've wached Microsoft abuse their 
dominant/monopoly position in the industry. Looking at the proposed 
settlement where Microsoft gets to seed computers in schools as a 
``punishment'' is beyond just wrong... it's offensive to me.
    I don't believe the settlement will lead to any positive result.
    Sincerely,
    James Ewell
    45 Hollingers Island
    Katy, TX 77450



MTC-00015161

From: Joshua P Harley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I do NOT believe that the 
current proposal penalizes Microsoft in any way.
    Microsoft is a very large and overbearing monopolistic company, 
so you need to provide very large and overbearing penalty.
    The current proposal is way too narrowly defined, giving 
Microsoft every chance to by pass this attempt at a ``punishment''.
    Sincerely,
    Joshua Harley
    5009 Pioneer Drive
    Lafayette, IN, 47905



MTC-00015162

From: Thibault, Steven
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement seeks to put Microsoft under 
restrictions for a time period and if they do not follow the 
restrictions the time period is extended. What is going to make 
Microsoft stop doing what has been decided to be in violation of the 
Sherman Antitrust act if they will simply be put under restrictions 
of the kind that they have not followed before. Also if they don't 
follow the restrictions in the first time period, what will 
extending the time period of those restrictions do. They will just 
be in violation of the restrictions longer. Still nothing will have 
changed and nothing is stooping Microsoft from using its monopoly in 
an anti-competitive way.
    I would hope the Department of Justice will seek a way to truly 
make Microsoft realize that they should not do the things that have 
been decided as wrong. If I had a chance to decide I know that 
putting a some sort of large fine on them will definitely make 
Microsoft at least listen, and think of what can be done with that 
money. It could be given to schools in the form of grants to help 
them get caught up in technology. I could be donated to universities 
for advancing research, or even ease the cost of securing our 
country from terrorists which is on the front of all our minds after 
the recent events.
    Steve Thibault
    Concerned citizen and concerned Software developer.
    Steve Thibault
    Consultant in Engineering Systems
    Engineering Systems--IS Norwood
    [email protected]
    781-440-8474



MTC-00015163

From: Chris Cleary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    Microsoft Corporation is a successful company, providing to me 
as an individual consumer an excellent product. I had the personal 
choice to purchase other products, other software, and other 
computers; I chose not to. I selected my computer and loaded my 
software on it.
    From my perspective, I have no problem with Microsoft. It does 
appear as if its competitors do have a problem with Microsoft's 
success since they originated the action. If these competitors had 
shown to me that their product was superior to the Microsoft product 
and a better value, I would have purchased theirs.
    However, based upon my personal needs and situation, the 
Microsoft product satisfied it better and completely.
    As an agent of the government and the government itself, the 
primary responsibility you have is to protect the property of a 
citizen. Do so in this case, leave Microsoft's property alone, leave 
Bill Gates, a model for success for generations of people, and his 
property in tact, and, most importantly, stay away from my property.
    Thank you,
    Chris Cleary
    Fairfield, OH
    CC:[email protected] @inetgw,activism@mor. . 
. 



MTC-00015164

From: Tucker, Phil
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    its a bad Idea



MTC-00015165

From: Matt Christoff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. A breakup is the only solution to 
restore competition. There can be no effective solution that doesn't 
solve the problem of the operating systems complexities being 
withheld from competing companies who create windows software. These 
competing companies are always at a hopeless disadvantage. They 
attempt to compete against the hand that can choose to feed them the 
information they need to compete, or not to feed them the 
information. What would anyone do in Microsoft's situation? Not give 
the potential competitor the information they need to successfully 
compete with Microsoft of course. With their regular abuse of this 
power which is decidedly in violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act, 
Microsoft's software invariably comes out looking superior when in 
fact, if they had not withheld the information, they would be on 
equal footing with other companies developing business solutions, 
and would no longer be able to create the illusion of superior 
workmanship and innovation. But why would a corporation whose 
primary concern is the bottom line share that information?
    They will not.



MTC-00015166

From: Paul Marcus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the settlement as it stand is a bad idea because it doesn't 
fully address the problem in a couple of areas. 1. the monopoly is 
still in effect. 2. It does nothing to take Microsoft's stranglehold 
off the PC market. 3. ``Free software'' by Microsoft does basically

[[Page 26053]]

nothing as far as damages. I am totally against the judgement as it 
stands.
    Paul Marcus



MTC-00015167

From: Thibault, Steven
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't like the settlement. I think it is a bad idea.
    Steve Thibault
    Consultant in Engineering Systems
    Engineering Systems--IS Norwood
    [email protected]
    781-440-8474



MTC-00015168

From: kraxzor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing this e-mail to voice my concern with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. First of all, too little too late. Microsoft 
has been abusing its position as a MONOPOLY for YEARS. First it was 
Apple, then it was Netscape who's next? It is unfortunately not 
common knowledge that Microsoft integrated their browser in to their 
OS there by completely by-passing the need for an alternative, and 
that was only AFTER they gave it away for free (the browser) which 
they could afford to. Where as Netscape could not.
    Next on the long list of issues is Apple, where on earth do you 
think Windows got its GUI guidelines from? And it continues to do so 
just look at MacOS X and Windows XP (one was released about one year 
before the other, it is needless to say which). Look at QuickTime 
for Windows, look at Java for Windows, look at OpenGL for Windows, 
all technologies made by third-parties that have been muscled out by 
Microsoft. But there is little that can be done about some things so 
far back in computer history. However we can prevent it form 
happening in the future. Microsoft's monopoly must be terminated, 
sharply, very near in the future before more technologies are 
strangled by this giant.
    Although I feel that ALL of the propositions to settle the case 
are INSUFFICIENT I believe at the very least the company should be 
broken up in to smaller divisions and fined. In particular seperate 
the browser for the OS and any add on technologies.
    Thank you for reading/listening,
    N Stefanov



MTC-00015169

From: proberts@gargoyle. users.patriot.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is an 
extremely bad idea. The proposed settlement does nothing to hinder 
Microsoft from repeating its past abuses of monopoly power and 
indeed rewards them with an increased user base in the educational 
market.
    Paul D. Robertson
    Paul D. Robertson ``
    My statements in this message are personal opinions which may 
have no basis whatsoever in fact.''
    [email protected]



MTC-00015170

From: James Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope that you will reject the toothless settlement of the 
(current) Microsoft antitrust trial; it sounds good in some ways, 
but the devil is in the details:
--The disclosure requirements very carefully let Microsoft avoid 
disclosure to Open Source software writers, who are a major source 
of alternatives to Microsoft products.
--Concerns have even been raised that the language of the settlement 
allows Microsoft to evade disclosure of its API (Application Program 
Interface). Microsoft has in the past modified its API as 
implemented in win32s.dll with the sole intent of breaking 
compatibility with OS/2, and it has considerable motivation to make 
similar changes with the sole goal of breaking compatibility 
libraries such as WINE, Odin, and competing products such as 
Lindows.
--The settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft's ``embrace and 
extend'' tactics that allow it to subvert public standards and 
perceived threats such as Java.
--The settlement does not prevent Microsoft from retaliating against 
OEMs that wish to offer computers without any operating system so 
that the purchaser may choose whatever operating system he or she 
wishes to run.
--The settlement does nothing to allow competing software to use 
files with proprietary Microsoft formats, such as Microsoft Word 
(.doc) files.
    Microsoft is notorious for blatantly ignoring prior antitrust 
settlements, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not do the 
same with this one.
    James Jones
    9557 University #14
    Clive, IA 50325



MTC-00015171

From: Ben Snyder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following statements about the Microsoft-DOJ settlement are 
submitted under the provisions set forth by the Tunney Act.
    Section III.D:
    According to the settlement, Microsoft must disclose ``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.''
    It should be made known that the least expensive, also the most 
basic, MSDN subscription is approximately $200. This may be cost 
prohibitive to an extremely small software firm, and possibly even 
more so to an individual who may desire to develop software for the 
Windows Operation Systems. If someone were developing software for 
free distribution, it is doubtful the individual would be able to 
justify the cost of obtaining the documentation for the APIs.
    Section III.J.1:
    According to the settlement, Microsoft will not be required 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.''
    Who decides if the APIs in question fall into these categories? 
If there is no requirement to even document the existence of these 
APIs, then their existence and purpose may be perceived differently 
by each individual, and therefore there is no consensus on if the 
APIs in question fall into the categories listed above.
    Overall, it can be said that the settlement overly favors 
business, even the defendant is given too much favor in some cases. 
By favoring business rather than the populace, the monopolistic 
characteristic of difficulty in entering the market still exists, 
making it difficult for a small firm or individual from competing 
fairly.



MTC-00015172

From: Timothy Lawless
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive that the proposed settlement to the Microsoft Antitrust 
case is an incomplete solution that will not resolve the underlying 
businuess practices that have choked out competition out of the PC 
software markets.
    Specificly:
    I. The definition of the ``Windows Operating System Product'' is 
too narrowly defined, and will thus permit microsoft to leverage 
their past wrongs by slightly changing their Operating System 
product to fall outside of the definition.
    It is proposed that Definition ``U.'' should read: ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' means any software or firmware code 
distributed commerically for given away free of charge by Microsoft 
that is capable of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs or a 
deritive thereof, including with out exclusion Windows 2000 
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC 2002, and successors to the 
forgoing, including the products currently code named ``Longhorn'' 
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, bug 
fixes, service packs, subscriptions, etc.
    II. Section E Permits mircoroft to develop propritary APIs for 
Microsoft products that will enable those products to have an unfair 
competitive advantage over published, likely less efficient APIs.
    It is proposed that Section E be ammended by striking: for the 
sole purpose of

[[Page 26054]]

interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product'' and 
inserting: for the purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product or with application software written for 
Windows,
    III. Section III, A, 2 of the Proposed final judgement is worded 
in such a way that will allow Microsoft to use pricing arrangements 
to force vendors to continue to sell Micorosft loaded hardware, when 
other competitive opperating systems are present. It is proposed the 
section be ammended by adding: or (c) includes a non-Microsoft 
Operating System but no Microsoft Operating System Product; or
    Again, I belive that the settlement is Bad for the Public, Bad 
for the Compitition, and only good for Microsoft. I urge you to 
throw out the proposed settlement.
    Tim Lawless
    Security Consultant,
    Sterling VA, 20165



MTC-00015173

From: Jaysyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. They have been 
hurting small companies like the one I work for by disallowing 
cometition on the desktop. They should go to corporate prison for a 
few years.
    Thanks
    Jason Collins



MTC-00015174

From: Chris Peterson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading the proposed Microsoft settlement, I feel this 
does not address all of the issues that pertain too the real world 
effects of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. I feel the 
judgment needs to be revised in favor or a more strict proposal 
against Microsoft, one which would allow better competition. Thank 
you for taking the time to read my opinion!
    Chris Peterson
    Gainey Transportation
    IS Department
    1-800-669-8658 ext 286
    [email protected]



MTC-00015176

From: Steve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    You Honor,
    The settlement offer by Microsoft (MS) I consider an insult to 
the court. Per my understanding there's supposed to be a penalty, 
but in actuality is, in my professional opinion, a huge business 
opportunity for MS. MS should not give away free CD's for pennies on 
the dollar only to have a hole new market opened up for them in five 
years.
    A much better solution, as offered by RedHat, is to have MS 
spend the same amount buying computers for the schools. Then, RedHat 
will donate not only the Operating System for free, for life. But 
also lots of software that can be used in any fashion the schools 
feel.
    This would then create about 70 computers per school rather than 
the 30 MS solution would.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Szmidt



MTC-00015177

From: Paul Lupa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Sirs,
    As an End user and small reseller of MicroSoft products. The 
terms of the settlement are not acceptable, nor do they preclude 
MicroSoft from continuing in it's current mode of Monopolistic 
behaviour.
    Please! this settlement is not good for Me, The computer 
industry, The US.
    I have been hurt by MicroSofts practices and the proposed 
settlement will NOT address the problem.
    Thanks,
    Paul Lupa



MTC-00015178

From: Wayne Wylupski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not go far enough to 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in monopolistic practices. The 
proposed settlement does not consider competing operating systems 
that are Windows compatible.
    This Proposed Final Judgement should not be adopted without 
substantial revision.
    Wayne Wylupski



MTC-00015179

From: Jim Hurd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02  10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement. I support Dan 
Kegel's remedy at
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy1.html.
    Jim



MTC-00015180

From: Richard C Hutchison
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Richard C. Hutchison, CQIA
    Student, George Mason University
    Fairfax, VA



MTC-00015181

From: Ric Conley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. It will not stop Microsoft's 
behavior at all.
    Richard Conley



MTC-00015182

From: Jason Giglio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    As a worker in the computer field, I am in daily contact with 
many computer software products. Computers continually amaze me at 
what they are capable of doing. I am lucky, though; I am savvy 
enough to be able to seek out alternatives to Microsoft products.
    There are millions of other people who use computers, but who 
are not savvy enough to install their own Operating Systems. Those 
people just use what comes on the computer, and don't see the other 
options.
    This is a direct result of Microsoft abusing their monopoly 
power in pressuring OEMs to give them exclusive deals, and 
pressuring OEMs to exclude any other options on the desktop.
    This, however, is just the tip of the iceburg. I am continually 
confronted with minor ways that MS abuses their monopoly power, ways 
that less computer savvy people never notice.
    One example is the Starband Internet service. Microsoft is a 
large investor in Starband, and the influence shows. It is 
impossible to use an operating system other than MS Windows on a 
computer attached to a Starband satellite Internet system. Advocates 
of alternate operating systems have asked for the specifications to 
allow a driver to be written for other operating systems, but 
Starband has refused.
    Another example is the MSN Internet service. It can be used on 
non-Windows platforms, but one cannot send and recieve email, due to 
Microsoft using a proprietary standard for email on their service 
that only works with Microsoft Outlook. Microsoft also blocks the 
running of one's own mail server, which would allow one to avoid 
using the Microsoft servers with their incompatible protocol.

[[Page 26055]]

    Yet another example is the Microsoft File and Print Sharing 
protocol. A program has been developed for Linux/UNIX operating 
systems named Samba. Microsoft has consistantly changed subtle parts 
of their file sharing protocol, in attempts to break any programs 
that attempt to interoperate with Windows on a non-Windows platform.
    We must not allow this monopoly to continue abusing their 
position of power. An easy settlement of the case, with a mere slap 
on the wrist of Microsoft, is not enough.
    The Proposed Final Judgement fails to address these issues of 
deliberate incompatibility, it would do nothing to address the 
important issues that I face every day as a person who has to 
attempt to design systems to interoperate with Microsoft Systems. 
The Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would delay the 
emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems, and is 
therefore not in the public interest. It should not be adopted 
without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Jason Giglio
    Information Technology Coordinator, Smyth Companies, Bedford VA
    Phone: 540-586-2311x113
    e-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00015183

From: Steve Schmeiser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree nor support the Microsoft settlement in its 
current form. It does not do enough to punish Microsoft, and more 
importantly it does nothing to encourage innovation in the sector. 
The information age was built on an open architecture and as a 
result we experienced a golden age of innovation that brought us the 
Internet. If Microsoft is allowed to keep our current architecture 
behind closed doors, innovation will be inhibited and progress will 
be slow.
    Thank you for your time,
    Steve Schmeiser
    1402 Laurel St.
    Iowa City, IA 52240



MTC-00015185

From: Kevin O'Shaughnessy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the settlement in Microsoft's antitrust suit. 
It fails to address the truly anticompetitive stranglehold that 
Microsoft has on the computing field in general.



MTC-00015186

From: Conlan Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I belive the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is bad. I dont belive it properly punishes a convicted 
monopolist. Thank you for your time
    Conlan Adams



MTC-00015187

From: John (038) Rebecca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to state my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
anti-trust case by the US Department of Justice.
    As a convicted monopolist, Microsoft needs to be punished for 
it's actions.
    Nothing in the proposed settlement from the DOJ actually 
punishes Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    John Jablonski
    3750 N. Oak Park Ave
    Chicago, IL 60634
    773-545-3199



MTC-00015188

From: Will Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States I wish to formally make it 
known that I do not approve of the limited measures that have been 
done to censure and punish the monopoly Microsoft.
    Will Walker
    Box B4, North Greenville College, Tigerville, SC 29688



MTC-00015189

From: Robert Minvielle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel that the proposed settlements in the Microsoft case are 
poor. The punishment in this case does not fit the crime, and I 
would perhaps compare it to a murder trial where the defendant is 
found guilty but given one year in jail with the possibility of 
being let out early on good behaviour as the punishment.
    The company is too large and too all-encompasing for this matter 
to be taken lightly. There is no innovation in the desktop 
marketplace and dare I say in any marketplace in which Microsoft has 
a interest. To summarize, I feel that harsher penalties should be 
imposed on Microsoft. These penalties should be well thought out in 
terms of competition and the market, perhaps by an entity that has 
been here for some time and has nothing to gain or loose by this. 
Perhaps the EFF (electronic frontier foundation)?
    Thank you for your time.
    Robert Minvielle
    Electronics Programmer Specialist
    University of Notre Dame



MTC-00015190

From: Poriss, Jason S113
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:30am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I would like to make a few short comments regarding the proposed 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. I feel that Microsoft should not be 
allowed to include any middleware products, regardless of whether 
others are allowed to compete. Microsoft, by all means, should be 
allowed to create programs such as browsers, MP3 audio players, 
video players, disk defragmenters, etc. However, they should have 
exactly the same integration tools available to them as competing 
companies. In all likelihood the only way to ensure this would be to 
split the Microsoft OS from the rest of Microsoft, although that 
apparently is no longer an option.
    Let me draw a short picture which illustrates the destructive 
effect Microsoft has on competition. Several years ago, I bought a 
Microsoft operating system so that I could use my computer's 
hardware. Then I bought and installed several programs which allowed 
me to do tasks I needed to do, for example:
    * Audio Player > WinAmp
    * Disk Defragmenter > Disk Keeper
    * Browser > Netscape Navigator
    * Video Player > QuickTime
    * System tools > Noton Utilities
    * Web Server > Apache The list goes on an on... today however, I 
don't need to buy any of the above third party tools, my system 
looks more like this:
    * Audio Player > Microsoft Media Player
    * Disk Defragmenter > Microsoft Disk Defragmenter
    * Browser > Microsoft Internet Explorer
    * Video Player > Microsoft Media Player
    * System tools > Microsoft Scan Disk
    * Web Server > Microsoft IIS
    This is not a picture of healthy competition.
    Jason T. Poriss



MTC-00015191

From: jim beam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until 
its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, 
assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This must be 
true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition. Imagine the damage to 
the United States if Microsoft were to fail, as Enron failed. The 
risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015192

From: Josh Draper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very unhappy with the proposed settlement between the 
United States and Microsoft Corporation. The original plan really 
showed that Microsoft had done

[[Page 26056]]

something wrong, and would actually punish the corporation. This one 
is a slap on the wrist, and seems to say that as long as you've got 
enough money you don't have to worry about justice. Do the right 
thing, and don't give in to pressure to settle just because it's a 
huge corporation.
    Thank you,
    Joshua E. Draper
    Conway, Arkansas, United States



MTC-00015193

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to take this oportunity to address one of the 
reasons I believe the Proposed Final Judgement is insufficient. Even 
though the ``Findings of Fact'' paragraph 20 and 39 indicate that 
the fact that the file formats used by Microsoft applications are 
undocumented consitutes a barrier to entry, there is is nothing in 
the PFJ that obligates the documentation of these formats. This 
leads to a requirement that to communicate within a workplace, if a 
significant number of people are using Microsoft applications, that 
everyone must use them, and must therefore use Microsoft operating 
systems. Microsoft thus uses their monopoly to leverage further 
application sales. As this is not addressed in the PFJ, the PFJ is 
therefore insufficient.
    The opinions expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of 
either Lincoln Laboratory or the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology.
    Douglas E. Stetson
    Melrose, MA 02176
    Doug Stetson
    Staff
    MIT Lincoln Laboratory
    Voice: (781)981-4530
    Email: [email protected]
    http://www.ll.mit.edu/
    Information Systems Technology Group http://www.ll.mit.edu/IST



MTC-00015194

From: Tom Testa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I just want to send an Email saying that I support the 
settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. government. It is my 
strong belief that those companies and individuals who are against 
this wish only to replace Microsoft, not to stimulate innovation. 
Companies like AOL, SUN Microsystems, and groups such as the Linux 
community all have a large stake in seeing Microsoft fail. They seek 
a shift in the balance of power. This is not good for our economy 
and it is not good for the consumer. Destroying MS only benefits a 
small group who will be just as bad, or worse, if they were in the 
same place. I think the right thing to do is to settle this and to 
move on.
    Thanks for your time
    Thomas J. Testa Jr.



MTC-00015195

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the settlement is a bad idea. I am a WINE user 
and a U.S citizen. Please find some other way of rectifying the 
situation.
    Mariann Grantham



MTC-00015196

From: Brantley, Paul SWL CONTRACTOR
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please slow this company down, they are going to ruin the US by 
way of Security breaches.(through security wholes)



MTC-00015197

From: Greg Bossert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
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 proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In general, I agree with the problems 
identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), in summary:
    1. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    2. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    3. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    4. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    5. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    6. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    As a computing professional of 22 years standing, and as an 
active member of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and 
other international standards bodies, I agree in detail with Mr. 
Kegel's analysis, which I will not reproduce here. To give one 
personal example, however, let me give a case of point 4 above: the 
introduction of intentional incompatibilities to delay or derail 
competitive development efforts. As part of my efforts with the IETF 
and the Apache Software Foundation, I participated in the 
standardization of the WebDAV specification--a mechanism to allow 
documents to be maintained via the World Wide Web--and worked on 
developing a freely available references implementations for Apache 
and for the freely available Perl programming language. Note that 
the release of a freely available reference implementation is a 
requirement for IETF standards. Before the standard was officially 
finalized, and thus before completion of the freely available 
reference software, Microsoft released support for WebDAV with 
proprietary extensions and incompatibilities as a fully integrated 
part of their Windows 2000 operating system. The lack of 
interoperability between this Microsoft version of WebDAV and the 
standards-based development effectively stopped significant 
development of the freely available implementations, in this case 
before the standard was even officially published. At this point I 
know of no significant implementation of the actual standardized 
version of WebDAV that might compete against the Microsoft Windows 
2000 version. I believe that the Proposed Final Judgment as written 
allows and encourages significant anticompetitive practices of this 
type to continue, and would delay the emergence of competing 
Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the Proposed Final 
Judgment is not in the public interest, and should not be adopted 
without addressing these issues. Many thanks for your attention, and 
for your efforts on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Bossert [email protected]>



MTC-00015198

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft case, I do not believe Microsoft will be 
properly punished by this ruling. They have created a monopoly that, 
like the case against AT&T, should now be ran by the government 
until it's marketshare is reduced to reasonable levels. (e.g. 40%)
    Thank you for your time,
    Ben Carden
    6312 Champion Road
    Chattanooga, TN. 37416



MTC-00015199

From: aetius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I take issue with a specific part of the proposed settlement 
agreeement: ``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

[[Page 26057]]

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.''
    Section 1 here is supposed to prevent Microsoft from having to 
release API documentation that is seen as a security risk. The 
problem is that almost ALL communications protocols have security 
provisions as an integral part of the protocol--thus, this section 
essentially gives Microsoft the green light to block full API 
disclosure on the grounds that it would violate the security of the 
protocol. Without full API disclosure, you might as well hang it up, 
as no competing developers will be able to implement competing 
products. You can't half-disclose an API; it is an all-or-nothing 
approach. Half-disclosure, *especially* in relation to security 
provisions, means only half-functioning ``competing'' products.
    Further, this argument about ``protecting security'' is at most 
debatable. It has been repeatedly shown that Microsoft's proprietary 
protocols have suffered from numerous security breachs and problems. 
The term most often used for this in the computer security field is 
``security through obscurity'', which is almost universally 
denegrated as an effective means of securing the product or 
protocol. There is even a competing argument that full disclosure is 
a far superior method of ensuring that products and protocols are 
reasonably secure. Regardless of where you stand on this argument, 
this section is an easy out that Microsoft can use to continue 
business as usual.
    Section 2(a), (b), and (c) are a license to discriminate against 
open-source software providers like Red Hat, Inc and the Apache 
foundation. The term ``willful violation of intellectual property 
rights'' is nebulous--what does that mean? Does it include companies 
that license their software under the GNU Public License, which 
enforces source code revelation? Microsoft certainly sees Free 
Software and Open Source software to be ``virus-like'' and opposed 
to intellectual property rights. Microsoft also sees Linux and Free/
Open Source software as a primary competitor, so this section is 
allowing Microsoft free reign to operate against it's greatest 
threat, and continue to exclude Open Source and Free Software 
developers from any sort of API disclosure or assistance with inter-
operation. It is extremely doubtful that Microsoft will see Free 
Software or Open Source software as having a ``reasonable business 
need'' for the API, since most developers in the Free Software/Open 
Source communities don't have businesses. Links to Microsoft's view 
of Linux and the Free Software/Open Source community:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html
    http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20010110S0006
    http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html (use 
Google cache)
    The remedy to this portion of the agreement is simply to enjoin 
Microsoft to release the API documentation to anyone who asks. Only 
that will allow the thousands of developers world-wide who 
participate in Open Source and Free Software development to make 
their products inter-operable with Microsoft products. If this is 
not remedied, a huge portion of the competitive market is tacitly 
eliminated by this agreement. Section 2(d) is ill-defined, and could 
be abused. The entire agreement seems to be designed around trying 
to make Microsoft inter-operate with other vendors and not step on 
them or introduce default competing products/services, or at least 
that is the way that it sounds. Section 2(d) reduces the 
effectiveness of all the other provisions because it allows 
Microsoft to control (through ``compatibility testing'') what 
software can and cannot be run on Microsoft operating systems. The 
argument was probably that this would only cause a delay in the 
release of the software if it was found to be ``incompatible''; 
however, such ``delays'' could easily turn into delays that put 
companies under, or the cost could be so high that companies 
couldn't afford to pay, and of course private individuals would be 
completely unable to pay (since they can't even produce an 
``authentic and viable business need'' to run the software, let 
alone certify it.
    Section 2(d) needs to be redefined, especially with relation to 
competing Free Software and Open Source products, and with relation 
to Microsoft approval of what software runs on their OS. The third-
party stipulation is worthless (and could even be counter-
productive) since it must be Microsoft approved, which would 
engender an environment where the third-party certfication authority 
would bow to Microsoft's demands--they either do what Microsoft 
wants, or they lose the business, and certification is delayed 
(along with competing products) while Microsoft finds a 
certification partner that WILL do what they want. There is no 
stipulation on what constitutes ``approved'' by Microsoft.
    In summary, this agreement does not achieve what it seeks to 
accomplish. It allows Microsoft to force commercial ISV's to get 
their software approved before it can run on Windows, and it blocks 
the disclosure necessary for Microsoft's primary competition, Free 
and Open Source software, to continue to compete against and inter-
operate with Microsoft products. Please do not allow this agreement 
to be settled; it would make the entire anti-trust suit a depressing 
waste of time and money.
    Matthew Drew
    1310 Copper Creek Drive
    Durham, NC 27713



MTC-00015200

From: Dan Mindler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    Being a software professional for over 15 years, I believe the 
Proposed Final Judgment in the US v. Microsoft case does NOT go far 
enough. For over a decade, I've watched Microsoft grow into a 
monopoly, using its tremendous marketing/financial resource to 
unfairly crush competition.
    I agree with the comments on the PFJ displayed at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Respectfully,
    Dan Mindler
    Somerset, NJ
    [email protected]



MTC-00015201

From: Fuchs, Dan 6334 DUR HWS
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea. Caving into microsoft will just 
lead to more of the same.
    Dan Fuchs
    Durham, NH 03824



MTC-00015202

From: Brad Rittenhouse
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I am sending this as a concerned citizen to comment on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. I am a professional software 
developer who has been writing software for the Windows operating 
system since 1994 and hold a B.S. degree in computer science.
    Specifically I am conerned with the portion of the settlement 
that supposedly makes Microsoft publish its Windows API. I think the 
idea is great but the settlement defines ``API'' so narrowly that it 
would do little good to the development community. Microsoft already 
makes available portions of its API that allow developers to write 
software for Windows. The settlement defines API to mean the 
interface between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows. This 
doesn't include all other API's that Microsoft uses.
    I would propose that Microsoft must make available and document 
all DLL (Dynamic Link Library) entry points that it's software uses 
in ALL Microsoft products. This can be checked be easily checked by 
a layman to know if each function is documented, but of course would 
require a more experienced person to know if they did this 
correctly. Please consider updating the settlement and keeping 
Microsoft from continuing to stiffle competition and software in 
general.
    Thank you,
    Brad Rittenhouse ([email protected])



MTC-00015203

From: Michael J. Novak Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello. Personally, I use both Microsoft Windows 98se and 
Mandrake Linux. They are both good operating systems. However, any 
settlement that allows Microsoft to

[[Page 26058]]

expand their monopolistic base is a bad settlement. My understanding 
is that, as part of the settlement, they will donate computers and 
software (including their operating systems) to schools. By doing 
so, they are in fact expanding their user base, which would fly in 
the face of all logic regarding this issue. It doesn't seem like 
much of a ``penalty'', does it?
    If I am wrong about this, then I apologize for wasting your time 
in reading this. If I am right, then you need to correct this 
situation, because they are pulling a fast one on you!
    Either way, thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Novak Jr.
    Parma Hts., Ohio, USA



MTC-00015204

From: Bruce Jeffries
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:30am
Subject: Microsoft%20Settlement
    I am writing to you to REJECT the MS settlement. It is too 
little for such egregious behavior.



MTC-00015205

From: Christopher W. Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing due to my concern over the very inadequate 
settlement in the Microsoft case. The negotiated ``slap on the 
wrist'' settlement is very inadequate for a monopoly on the scale of 
Standard Oil and the former Bell system. As an American old enough 
to remember the telephone monopoly I feel that unfortunately that 
kind of ``draconian'' breakup is the only way to ``open up'' the 
computer operating system market and break Microsoft's monopoly 
power.
    Christopher Hunter, Augusta, Maine



MTC-00015206

From: Shane Killian
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:40am
Subject: Tell Microsoft NO!
    Microsoft should not be able to get away with playing unfairly 
with the industry. At the very least, every single Windows API 
should be opened, along with every protocol, so that competing 
companies can build software with the same features and stability as 
Microsoft can. Currently, Microsoft's claim to superiority in 
software comes about solely because these APIs and protocols are 
kept secret, therefore they are the only ones that can benefit from 
them. All other software manufacturers have to kludge a workaround. 
This would also allow for competing operating systems--such as WINE 
and Lindows--to be easily made with full compatibility, finally 
giving us some competition in the OS market.
    Thank you for listening.



MTC-00015207

From: Charlotte Partridge
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good morning,
    The Microsoft Settlement will not stop Microsoft from continuing 
predatory monopolistic behavior. The solution is to compel Microsoft 
into offering a bare-bones operating system and porting its Office 
products to other platforms. The OS is a lever into other markets. 
This has to be stopped. The alternate proposal offered by the states 
will be more effective.
    Regards,
    Charlotte Partridge
    1832 Joseph
    Ann Arbor, MI 48104



MTC-00015208

From: Utecht, Daniel B
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If reference to the Microsoft anti trust settlement: Section 
III(J)(2) limits who can license Microsoft's API documentation and 
other intellectual property. Only those companies that Microsoft 
judges as ``viable'' can license the information. This would exclude 
smaller companies and non profit organizations, as well as any 
company that comes up with an original idea that Microsoft doesn't 
have a strategy to dominate yet.
    Section III(D) limits who can get information needed to write 
software that interfaces directly with Windows and hardware. The 
Department of Defense, NASA, FBI, and our nation laboratories do not 
have any rights to the windows documentation needed to interface 
with Windows. Please reconsider these and other sections of the 
settlement. Thank you for your time. Daniel Utecht Kennedy Space 
Center, FL



MTC-00015209

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft-DOJ settlement is inadequate and 
insulting.



MTC-00015210

From: Paul Vinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    In accordance with ``The Tunney Act'', I would like to comment 
that I think the current Proposed Final Judgement misses the mark in 
several key areas:
    1) Microsoft is not being punished for it's past violations. 
There is only one way to punish a monopoly: Money. There must be a 
fine, and it must be huge. This fine should also have no directed 
purpose other than be contributed to the general revenue fund. There 
must also be progressive fines for future violations.
    2) Applications barriers for competing software companies must 
be stricken down with strong language that is not limited to certain 
Microsoft operating systems, and in the PFJ.
    3) And finally, if Microsoft has become a monopoly through being 
a de facto standard, then let the standards be published. All API's 
and middleware should become an open standard, with specific 
requirements to publish these standards before releasing new 
products.
    Mr. Paul Vinson (Rep)
    Arnold, Missouri



MTC-00015211

From: Glenn Everhart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement proposed leaves far too many 
holes for them to continue monopolistic behavior and should be 
replaced by something far more drastic. A settlement needs to be 
forward looking and address their use of a desktop monopoly to get 
into other markets. TV, home computing and the like, games, and so 
on should be things they have to hit the same barriers as everyone 
else. Likewise they should not be permitted to give shortcuts to 
their Internet services to the detriment of all other such services 
just by making windows default to MSN.
    Allowing that sort of thing is ridiculous.
    Glenn C. Everhart, PhD.



MTC-00015212

From: Zachary Schneider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Zachary Schneider
    Systems Administrator
    Village Press Inc.



MTC-00015213

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello,
    the offered settlement will allow microsoft to extend the 
monoply indefinitely and continue the erosion of competition in 
software.
    mike eschman, etc...



MTC-00015214

From: David Hamilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement is a very bad idea, and will only 
encourage Microsoft to continue with their illegal anti-competitive 
actions. Please break this company up, and put a stop to their 
practices once and for all.
    Sincerely,
    David Hamilton
    Infoworks, Inc
    Technical Consultant



MTC-00015215

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:33am
Subject: No to Microsoft anti-trust Proposed Final Judgement
    I would like to register my disapproval for the Proposed Final 
Judgement against Microsoft. As a computer scientist and software 
developer, I have for years seen Microsoft's dominance and monopoly 
power as an impediment to the furthering of my trade. Their anti-
competitive practices have made it impossible to buy a computer

[[Page 26059]]

without Windows (as I attempted to do last year from Dell) or MS 
Office (of which I already own several legal copies, but was forced 
to purchase again with my new Dell laptop). These kinds of licencing 
hurt individual computer purchasers, and will continue to do so 
under the proposed settlement.
    Additionally, their Windows monopoly has successfully prevented 
other competing operating systems (OS/2, BeOS to name a few) from 
gaining any reasonable market share. Because of the wording of the 
judgement, the next version of Windows may well not fall under its 
terms and Microsoft will be able to continue to abuse their monopoly 
power with impunity. Please refuse to accept the Proposed Final 
Judgement and look for a more strict solution that might actually 
change Microsoft's business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Rohrer
    Chief Technology Officer
    Safe@Work, Inc.



MTC-00015216

From: Bob Tribit
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I think the current Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I agree 
with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's analysis (on the Web at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
    Respectfully,
    Robert Klein Tribit
    Systems Administrator
    2048 Andrea Ave.
    Lindenwold, NJ 08021
    USA



MTC-00015217

From: Chris Allegretta
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing today to voice my disapproval of the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft Antitrust trial. I see little if 
anything in this settlement that will stop Microsoft from further 
extending its operating system, office suite and web browser 
monopolies into other areas of computing. Further, I feel that the 
proposed three person committee is highly unlikely to have any 
control over a company with the blatant disrespect for the legal 
system Microsoft has shown. Thank you for your time.
    Chris A
    Chris Allegretta
    http://www.asty.org
    ``Share and Enjoy''--Douglas Adams, 1952--2001



MTC-00015218

From: Jon Drnek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial. Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-
enterprise system. These practices inhibit competition, reduce 
innovation, and thereby decrease employment and productivity in our 
nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future. It is my 
belief that a very strong set of strictures must be placed on 
convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to continue 
their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Thank you.
    Jon Drnek
    Jon Drnek
    [email protected]
    http://www.mindspring.com/∼drnek



MTC-00015219

From: Chris Chabot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/03  8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to indicate that i am strongly against the proposed 
Microsoft settlement terms. My personal feelings are that the 
settlement only allows a company, who has been found to be an 
monopolist, is allowed to further use, and abuse its powers over the 
american, and world economy.
    As has been shown with the colapse with enron, it is very scary 
when a corperation has to much power, because every quick and every 
missstep has a profound influance on the USA and the world as a 
whole. Microsoft has already been found guilty of being a predator 
in the market, using unfair techniekes to further propergate their 
desire to fully conquer the software market. In this proposed 
settlement we give them a signal to continue doing so!
    Chris Chabot
    Old county road, Maine



MTC-00015220

From: David Whitcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft(R) Settlement does NOT adequately 
constrain Microsoft(R) from acting in a anti-competitive manner. In 
fact, it contains many ways that Microsoft(R) could twist the terms 
of the Settlement to increase its anti-competitive practices.
    P.S. Please note the sarcasm in the (R) marks beside Microsoft's 
name above.



MTC-00015221

From: Ski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Considering what Microsoft has done, the current settlement 
proposed by the Justice Department and the courts is a very bad 
idea. The Justice Department/DOJ should consider taking other 
action.
    Frank Skorupski
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    God Bless America



MTC-00015222

From: Thom Sturgill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a technician involved with personal computers almost since 
their conception, I have seen many excesses committed by Microsoft. 
In today's world, the ``theft'' of code involved in DOS 1.0 would 
probably have resulted in criminal charges.
    Microsoft is often portrayed as ``BORG'' from the Star Trek TV 
series. This is not far from true. For example when MS decided to 
add internet connection sharing to their product did they develop 
it? No, they ``innovated'' by finding the small company with the 
most compatible product (I believe their were five products on the 
market) and bought them. The other four companies (I believe) are 
gone now as are their competing products.
    Microsoft *MUST* be reigned in. Oversight of purchases (done 
with money that should have gone to investors in the form of 
dividends) should be in place to insure that they do not continue to 
stifle true innovation by buying and incorporating technologies to 
the detriment of other companies and ultimately the buying public 
which is robbed of choice.



MTC-00015223

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ fails to significantly affect Microsoft's ability to use 
its'' control in office applications against other software sectors. 
Microsoft has repeatedly displayed a willingness to use dominance in 
any sector to force advantage in other sectors. Any remedy that does 
not substantially restrict this, will fail to address the issues 
over which the suit was raised.
    Allen S. Rout



MTC-00015224

From: Charles Lechasseur
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    hello,
    I am writing to express my view of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. in essence, I think it is useless. the main problem I 
see is that it aims to allow other *commercial* companies to see 
microsoft's source code, etc. however, it has now become clear that 
microsoft's greatest enemy is not a particular

[[Page 26060]]

company--it is Linux, a free, open-source operating system for PC-
based computers. Linux is not maintained by simply one company or 
individual, but rather by a group of many individuals all over the 
world, donating their time for the greater good. however, they don't 
do it for profit, so in the wording of the proposed settlement, 
wouldn't get to benefit from seeing microsoft's source code, etc.
    there are surely many other problems with this settlement (like 
the fact that MS has a word in saying which company has a business 
model that's good enough to warrant seeing their source--it's like 
asking a killer what he thinks should be his verdict, and listening 
to him!). however, I just wanted to point out that microsoft 
probably doesn't care all that much if competitors see its source 
code, as long as those competitors are already way behind them. they 
probably care about Linux more than anything, and with the 
settlement, Linux is case aside.
    charles [email protected]
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/danov/marathon/
    ``The butts of evil are awaiting my bootprints!''
    Minsc



MTC-00015225

From: CircuitPunk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully disagree with the leniency afforded Microsoft in this 
landmark Antiv trust case. The Government is of the people, for the 
people and by the people. Unfortunately I no longer believe the 1st 
and third parts of that statement so at least keep our government 
for the people and hold tough against microsoft.
    Will Hamilton
    IS Consultant
    Park Ridge, IL 60068



MTC-00015226

From: John Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good morning. I am writing to express my concern over the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. My primary concern is that the remedy 
proposed does nothing to actually penalize Microsoft for past 
monopolistic behavior, and does little to prevent the same kinds of 
abuses from occurring in the future.
    For a company that has over $35 billion dollars in cash, a 
``donation'' of Microsoft licenses and obsolesced hardware in the 
amount of $1 billion is hardly a drop in the bucket. Microsoft knows 
that by utilizing this settlement, they can extend their monopoly 
into one of the few remaining areas over which they have no monopoly 
power. . .  the secondary education system. This is a gross abuse of 
the proposed settlement as it only allows Microsoft to continue 
their previous monopolistic behaviors, albeit with a court sanction.
    I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments. I urge the 
court to reject the proposed settlement, as it will not discourage 
future monopolistic behavior.
    Regards,
    John Anderson
    4104 Masters Way
    Alpharetta, GA 30005



MTC-00015227

From: Jack Wallen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my dismay at what could possibly be the 
single biggest injustice in the history of the United States 
consumers. I react in this way partially because of the state of the 
US economy. . . although there are many reasons.
    My foremost issue is that of the state of not-for-profit in this 
issue. As it stands, in such passages as Section III(J)(2) of the 
Proposed Final Judgement, not-for-profit organizations have no 
rights. This is an outrage! Would you allow your church to fall 
under such state that it has no right to be considered when, say, a 
large corporation decided it wanted to take over the land where the 
church stood? Imagine if your church had no say in the issue--it 
didn't even exist? And that is basically where the not-for-profit 
organizations (such as the Apache group, the Sendmail group, etc) 
stand. The biggest ``competitors'' to Microsoft have no rights.
    As far as I remember that was a basic foundation of this 
country--and it is being stripped away because Microsoft has its 
finger so tightly wound around politics that most all are afraid to 
de-sanctify this juggernaut.
    I ask that you rethink this and give the not-for-profit 
organization their rights. America is a competitive country and it 
simply isn't right to remove that competitive nature so one company 
can go on to destroy all the competition. In a dog-eat-dog world 
only the strongest survive but we all know we are talking dollars 
here--not strength--and with Microsoft basically owning the American 
dollar no one has a chance.
    Thank you very much.
    Jack Wallen, Jr.
    Track Editor--Linux/UNIX and Infrastructure
    TechRepublic (CNET Networks) L I N U X
    http://www.techproguild.com
    502-814-7741 R O C K S



MTC-00015228

From: Francois Morvillier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is wrong.
    regards,
    Fran?ois Morvillier



MTC-00015229

From: Vincent Penquerc'h
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have to voice my opinion against the proposed settlement. 
Having read different comments on the proposed settlement, and being 
myself a computer engineer (I in fact have been into computers for 
more than a decade), here are a few comments on the problems this 
settlement do not address. The main focus of the original trial was 
the inclusion of Internet Explorer in Windows 95. After pretending 
the two could not be separated, they did separate those. Now, 
however, the new Windows XP includes Internet Explorer, an affront 
to the DOJ and the American Government. This clearly shows the 
little respect Microsoft has for American Justice.
    One of the companies that has suffered the most from this is 
Netscape Communications, which was offering a competing innovative 
browser. AOL, which now owns Netscape Communications, is now in a 
position to compete with Microsoft over the web services business 
and Internet services in general. This prompted Microsoft to use 
this tactic again with Windows XP. Not surprisingly, many AOL users 
have had difficulties connecting to AOL with Windows XP. Every 
company that gets in a position to compete with Microsoft is victim 
of the dominant position of chairman Bill Gates'' firm to leverage 
the power of holding and misusing their monopoly on the operating 
system market. The current proposed settlement does nothing to 
ensure such a power can not be misused against AOL. Being a computer 
engineer, I see some of the provisions in the proposed settlement as 
ludicrous in a technical point of view. The provision of disclosing 
APIs does absolutely nothing to help Microsoft's own software to 
take advantage of assumptions about its internal working. Such 
assumptions, which are not part at all of an API, are very important 
to the building of a stable and efficient system. Only a full source 
code disclosure and analysis can help overcome this problem.
    Last, Microsoft has shown several times that it can and will 
simulate popular support. The last occurence of this is a poll on 
ZDNet about the popularity of several web services solutions, 
including Microsoft's .Net and Sun Microsystem's Java. Microsoft 
even already used this strategem in this very trial.
    For all these reasons, I believe that:
--The proposed settlement is utterly inefficient.
--The reactions in favor of Microsoft should be seen in light of 
their history of ``popular support''.
--Microsoft's monopoly is a major threat to the American software 
industry, as every day that passes raises the bar a competitor has 
to reach to have a chance.
    Competition is what has made America what it is. Countries with 
only one dominating player, as in the communist block, have failed 
to achieve what America did. In a time of recession, it is even more 
urgent to restore competition in the software market.
    Best regards,
    Vincent Penquerc'h
    Powered by Microsith Lookout--http://www.microsith.com/



MTC-00015230

From: Jonathan B Volmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In regards to the Microspft antitrust case:

[[Page 26061]]

    In short, I'm against it. It doesn't go far enough.
    The longer version:
    Microsoft is a highly successful company, and has achevied a 
large part of that success through making a good product and a well 
thought out marketing strategy. However, they have contaminated that 
time-honored and purely capitalist strategy with predatory tactics. 
Their focus on secrecy has led us to exceptionally insecure systems, 
and their focus on maintaining their monopoly has led them to 
restricting OEMs from shipping with competitor's prodicts, and their 
focus on increasing their capital has led them to seek out and 
destroy new, competing technology before it enters the marketplace.
    This goes against both the spirit of capitalism and the letter 
of the law. The filing of lawsuits has not changed their practices, 
they continue as before, and will continue as before after this 
settlement is enacted. Please reconsider, and increase the 
restrictions placed on Microsoft. Their practices decrease 
comptition, with is the driving force of our innovation.



MTC-00015231

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has abused its position of power for far too long. The 
proposed settlement does not go far enough to stop Microsoft from 
engaging in monopolistic practices in the future. I feel the 
settlement should be at the scale of the AT&T breakup.
    Kelly McArdle
    The contents of this message do not reflect the opinions of my 
employer.



MTC-00015232

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settelment is a terrible idea and it may actually 
EARN Microsoft money instead f penalizing them for violating 
antitrust law. by allowing them to give $200 Million in hardware and 
$800 Million (presumably calculated at full retail price, not volume 
discount price) what you are doing is giving them a $1 Billion tax 
deduction in exchange for about a (and I am being generous to 
Microsoft here) $250 Million cost.
    This settlement would also give Microsoft an in in the 
educational market where they have traditionally not done well along 
with mind share with our children. All in all, this seems like a 
money-making venture for Microsoft, as opposed to a penalty for 
violating Federal Law.
    There was a counter-proposal from Red Hat Software for Microsoft 
to provide $1 Billion in hardware, and Red Hat would provide 
equivalent (though Linux based) software for free. this solution has 
the distinct advantage of actually costing Microsoft $1 Billion 
(although they still get the tax break) while not giving them a leg 
up in a new market. This settlement would also mean 5 times as many 
computers would get to the schools, a significant improvement I 
think.
    However, I prefer Option 3. Make Microsoft give $1 Billion (I 
would prefer $4 Billion) in cash to these schools, to spend as they 
see fit, with the condition that not $1 can be spent on Microsoft 
products. Because while I earn my living using computers, they are 
not very useful to a child who cannot read because his school does 
not have the resources to teach him how.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Salisbury --
    *******************
    ** Mark Salisbury **
    ** [email protected] **
    *******************



MTC-00015233

From: Eric Stoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement. Please reconsider.
    Eric Stoll
    Software Engineer
    Mindex Technologies, Inc.
    3495 Winton Place, Bldg. E, Suite 4
    Rochester, NY 14623
    (585) 424-3590 Ext. 3005
    (585) 424-3809 Fax
    http://www.mindex.com>



MTC-00015234

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not good enough to address 
Microsoft's flaunting of anti-trust law. As someone in the IT field 
who has to deal with Microsoft's ubiquitious and yet shoddy products 
on a daily basis I say: make the punishment sting, so they won't 
leverage their monopoly any more and make things worse for us.
    Jason Balicki
    Sr. Network Engineer
    Alexander Systems, Maryland Heights, MO.



MTC-00015235

From: Nicholas Meeth
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsft Settlement Dear Sir/Madam
    I am concerned with the proposed settlement with Microsoft and 
do not think it will benefit anyone except Microsoft. I think the 
judgement does not reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by 
new entrants to the market is it's main weakness.
    Nick



MTC-00015236

From: Jason Oppel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my displeasure at the current proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. Microsoft has in the 
past flouted consent decrees that have been handed down and its 
likely they will flout the proposed final judgement that is 
currently before the court. The barrier to entry into Microsoft 
markets needs to be lowered (esp. in operating systems and office 
suites). There are many artificial barriers that Microsoft has 
created to raise the barrier of entry into their markets which allow 
them an unfair advantage over their competitors. One of the barriers 
is non documented file formats for things such as MS Office files. 
Another example is non documented MS APIs which if documented would 
allow other operating systems to run programs written for Windows. 
There are many more examples but I will leave the two previous anti-
competetive behaviors (which I consider the two most egregious). 
Those two tactics along with many other strong arm tactics has made 
Microsoft dominating operating system and office suite producer not 
because they've competed successfully but rather because they have 
engaged in activities which lock any potential competitors out. The 
proposed final judgement does nothing to address these problems. I 
hope you will consider my comments when making your final judgement. 
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter!
    Sincerely,
    Jason Oppel
    7150 Reynolda Rd. #9
    Pfafftown, NC 27040



MTC-00015237

From: kevin lyda
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    the proposed settlement won't do much to curb microsoft's anti-
competitive actions in the furture, nor deal with their past 
behavior. this page covers most of the issues that concern me: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html . i have requested to be 
listed as a co-signer of it.
    kevin lyda (u.s. citizen) ballinvoher caherlistrane co. galway
    ireland
    +353.93.31036



MTC-00015238

From: Jared Burns
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to those raised against the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. If the proposed settlement is granted 
to Microsoft, it will be a crushing blow to the computer industry. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking the law. They must not 
only be stopped from continuing to break the law (something the 
proposed settlement attempts but does not ensure), they must be 
subject to just punishment. I agree with Ralph Nader's open letter 
(found here: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html) 100%. It is my desire that a new 
penalty be composed based on Mr. Nader's observations.
    Thank you,
    Jared Burns
    Software Developer, Object Technology Inc.



MTC-00015239

From: Bert Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26062]]

    The proposed settlement is flawed and should be rejected. It 
allows Microsoft to continue its anti-competitive practices based on 
its linking of operating system and application software. The 
appropriate solution is the breakup of Microsoft into two companies 
proposed by Judge Jackson. If that is not possible, the the stat 
attorneys general's remedies should be considered.
    Thank you
    Bert K. Collins
    24 Thoreau Road
    Lexington MA 02420



MTC-00015240

From: Jason B Morningstar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
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 proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I feel that the proposed settlement is 
seriously flawed on a number of grounds, including the fact that 
Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications. The proposed settlement does not address this problem.
    To demonstrate my point, read the Microsoft Windows Media 
Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA, which states:
    . . .  you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . .  Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); . . . 
    Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by 
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable components. 
Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, even 
though they might later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft 
often provides those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) 
prohibiting their use with Open Source applications. This harms ISVs 
who choose to distribute their applications under Open Source 
licenses; they must hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-
date version of the addon API installed, which is often not the 
case. Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include 
the competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems. Please take this into consideration when finalizing the 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Morningstar
    421 Melanie Court
    Chapel HIll, NC 27514



MTC-00015241

From: Al Grimstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is very bad. Microsoft is a highly anticompetitive monopoly 
sucking the life out of the software market.
    They need to be reformed.
    Al Grimstad
    PO Box 1198
    Hollis, NH 03049



MTC-00015242

From: Edward Pricer
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the currently proposed microsoft settlement.



MTC-00015243

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank You.
    David M. Lukens
    757 Tussuck Ct.
    Worthington, OH 43085



MTC-00015244

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the DOJ:
    I am writing to you so that I may express my dissappointment 
with the Microsoft case so far. Despite being convicted as a 
monopolist and submitting remedies that were denied by the courts, 
Microsoft continues to dodge any attempt to truly sanction and 
penalize the company for their business practices. I stongly 
encourage the DOJ to make sure that Microsoft doesn't walk away with 
a mere slap on the wrist. Microsoft is a very powerful company that 
influences senators (e.g Senator Byrd from West Virginia stopped 
depositions during a congressional commitee hearing so that only the 
Pro-Microsoft side could read their comments and be captured by the 
media. All of the remaining depositions were entered into the 
record, but never presented, nor heard live by the media. Let's show 
the world that Microsoft can't buy favor and influence in the DOJ!
    Thank you for your attention,
    Alexander Bruno
    Entre lo dicho y lo hecho, hay un gran trecho.



MTC-00015245

From: Kirby, Josh
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section III.E / III.I.1-5
    I believe that this is an excellent first step to the opening of 
the protocols used by Windows (eg SMB/etc). The difficulty lies in 
that their are very few operating systems competing for the desktop 
these days. One that is the freely available Linux system. It would 
seem to me that the restrictions to be provided by Microsoft would 
limit the availability of details that would allow the Samba group 
to develop their freely available software after getting this 
information. Microsoft has such market clout now that its protocols 
are the standards. Further it tends to embrace and extend any 
current standard to its own desire, hindering efforts at 
interoperability between other operating systems and its own. 
Perhaps a more far reaching idea would be that Microsoft open all of 
its document formatting standards (eg Microsoft Office) which should 
help ensure the development of a host of competing products in the 
industry.
    It is my personal belief that these ``Microsoft Standards'' (if 
you will) should be fully open and available to the community at 
large. I believe this would only help to spur competition in the 
industry that is currently lacking.
    Joshua Kirby
    Southwest Power Pool
    IT Specialist III
    (501) 614-3306
    [email protected]
    CC:`tunney(a)codeweavers.com''



MTC-00015246

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It is my belief that the current proposed settlement between the 
DOJ and Microsoft is hardly a penalty consistent with the crime 
(past and present). This ``slap on the hand'' will only embolden 
Microsoft since it represents a surrender by the only entity capable 
of stopping it's illegal activity. Of particular concern is the 
exclusion of Open Source projects and non-commercial not-for-profit 
entities Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it 
need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications 
Protocols affecting authentication and authorization to companies 
that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``. . . (c) 
meets reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, . . . ''
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of

[[Page 26063]]

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. Given the actions 
of Microsoft in the past that mandated this trial, and the fact that 
they continue to maintain that they DID NOTHING WRONG, do you 
believe that they will not use to the full extent the opening given 
to them (above) against their last competitor (The Open Source 
Community)?
    I believe that the correct solution is to break up Microsoft 
into Operating-System and Application divisions. This would ``open 
the playing field'' for competition in applications, and encourage 
Microsoft to develop applications for other platforms. I believe 
that Microsoft would benefit from being split up. But unlike the 
current proposed solution, we (the general public) would benefit as 
well.
    Thank you very much,
    Scott Nichols



MTC-00015247

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
which I feel is wholly inadequate and needs to be revised. I've been 
an IT professional for five years now, both working with desktop 
computer systems and programming for them, so I'm aware both of the 
technical issues surrounding the Windows APIs and the effects they 
have on software produced for the desktop. In order to truly allow 
competition in the software market, Windows API specifications need 
to be provided to the software development community in an 
unrestricted and timely fashion, and the proposed settlement does 
not allow for this. Under the proposed settlement, Microsoft is 
required neither to completely document its APIs, or to release them 
soon enough that software developers can compete in meaningful ways. 
What's worse, the restrictions placed on the use of the 
documentation released are ridiculous, and would require other 
software vendors to go to extreme and inappropriate lengths to avoid 
violating those restrictions if they wish to use the information 
provided by Microsoft under the settlement. Just who is being 
punished here, anyway? When one also considers the fact that 
disclosure of the Office file formats--one of the real keys to 
Microsoft's domination of the desktop market-- is not included in 
the settlement, it becomes clear that the proposed solution is not 
sufficient either to reign in Microsoft or to effectively encourage 
competition in the software development industry. I urge you to 
rethink and rewrite it, and give some of us in the industry a real 
chance to make some changes in its dynamics. A pro forma resolution 
like the current draft is useless at best, and at worst an insult.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew
    Seidl



MTC-00015248

From: Robert Freeborn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry. The 
PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and Provisions 
The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it 
defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not 
be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware. The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but 
it defines that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating 
systems that all use the Win32 API and are advertized as being 
``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation to ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but 
only after the deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their 
middleware is compatible. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License 
Terms currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses 
restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps from running on 
Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to 
keep Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft. Microsoft has in the past inserted 
intentional incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from 
running on competing operating systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs The PFJ allows Microsoft to 
retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a 
competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs-- 
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on 
Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft 
Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas. The PFJ as currently written appears to 
lack an effective enforcement mechanism.
    Thanks,
    Robert Freeborn



MTC-00015249

From: Jen Clodius
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepeople:
    I strongly object to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. As I read it, I see nothing in the proposed 
settlement that would require Microsoft to change their monopolistic 
business practices. Moreover, the proposed settlement seems to give 
Microsoft control over a number of the enforcement decisions. I urge 
you to reconsider your proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jen Clodius
    Jen Clodius
    Senior Community Involvement Representative
    http://www.bnl.gov/
    Brookhaven National Laboratory
    631-344-2489 [email protected]



MTC-00015250

From: mssettlement@ primary.seanmcpherson.com @inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I have recently spent a great deal of time reading and 
attempting to understand the specifics of the proposed
    Microsoft Settlement (http://www.usdoj. gov/atr/cases/ms-
settle.htm). I have also considered how Microsoft's actions have 
affected me as a consumer, as well as both a software developer and 
a systems administrator for a multi-million dollar company. In all 
instances, I have experienced many situations in which I feel that, 
due to the many ways in which Microsoft has blatantly abused it's 
market position, my options have been unreasonably restricted

[[Page 26064]]

and my expenditures unreasonably increased. As such, I'd like to 
state formally that I do not believe the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement is sufficient or in the best interests of the affected 
consumers, be they business or personal consumers.
    Please consider this statement as a clear message that I oppose 
the settlement as it currently stands, and would expect to continue 
to oppose it without rather drastic changes. Thanks for your time 
and consideration,
    Sean McPherson
    Systems Administrator/Independent Open Source Developer
    Louisville, KY USA
    mssettlement@ seanmcpherson.com



MTC-00015251

From: Kirby, Josh
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Section III.E / III.I.1-5
    I believe that this is an excellent first step to the opening of 
the protocols used by Windows (eg SMB/etc). The difficulty lies in 
that their are very few operating systems competing for the desktop 
these days. One that is the freely available Linux system. It would 
seem to me that the restrictions to be provided by Microsoft would 
limit the availability of details that would allow the Samba group 
to develop their freely available software after getting this 
information.
    Microsoft has such market clout now that its protocols are the 
standards. Further it tends to embrace and extend any current 
standard to its own desire, hindering efforts at interoperability 
between other operating systems and its own. Perhaps a more far 
reaching idea would be that Microsoft open all of its document 
formatting standards (eg Microsoft Office) which should help ensure 
the development of a host of competing products in the industry.
    It is my personal belief that these ``Microsoft Standards'' (if 
you will) should be fully open and available to the community at 
large. I believe this would only help to spur competition in the 
industry that is currently lacking.
    Joshua Kirby
    Southwest Power Pool
    IT Specialist III
    (501) 614-3306
    [email protected]



MTC-00015252

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my displeasure at the possible 
furthering the non-competetive environment in the computing 
community by way of the Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement I hahe seen would have Microsoft supplying 
computers and Microsoft products to school systems. On the surface 
this is very nice, however I was a young adult when another company 
almost gave hardware and software away to colleges for use in their 
computing needs. IBM managed to get a strangle hold on the computing 
market for years due to the familiarity of the college student 
having worked on nothing else but IBM equipment. It even created a 
snobbery of sorts at anyone who would even think of using another 
vendor.
    It is my belief that is the Department of Justice allows this 
settlement to go through, then we will have exactly the same 
situation again, amplified by the ``underprivileged youth 
accomplishment'' call of the liberals in this country.
    Please do not step into this trap.
    Sincerely
    Doyle Combs
    850 Brookwood Dr.
    Tallahassee FL 32308



MTC-00015253

From: Jon Fether
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Objection
    Dear Antitrust Department,
    It has come to my attention that pursuant to the Tunney Act, 
there is a period of public input into the settlement Microsoft has 
proposed. I am writing to state that I believe this settlement has 
multiple failings of justice.
    My first objection is the fact that Microsoft is effectively 
being handed the right to print the currency this settlement would 
be paid with. Microsoft would be handing out licenses to use copies 
of it's products for the bulk of the settlement. It will no doubt 
count the licenses against the settlement at full retail sales price 
of their software. This is akin to me jotting down ``$800'' on a 
cocktail napkin, handing it to the judge and saying I've paid my 
debt to society. Microsoft must bear some burden from the 
settlement, permitting them to ``give their software to schools'' 
only burdens them for a trivial cost of media and printing. I 
believe a cash settlement would be more appropriate in this regard, 
as it is a true penalty, however I believe strongly that injunctive 
relief is the only means appropriate to resolve this case.
    The second objection to this settlement is the fact that 
Microsoft furthers market dominance through this settlement, in 
fact, through to further generations of Americans. This smacks in 
the face of the reason this lawsuit was filed. It's like the tobacco 
industry promising cigarrettes to children in schools to make up for 
secondhand smoke deaths. (I admit, Microsoft has not killed anyone 
to my knowledge, however I've become frustrated with their products 
nonetheless. It's almost as bad.) I must object to this marketing 
ploy.
    The settlement also fails to address the problems of Microsoft's 
customer base at large. I believe a fair settlement should include 
refunds for the Internet Explorer portion of Windows that many 
Americans were forced to buy. Microsoft's claim that Explorer is 
integral to the operating system is a lie; if it were they would not 
offer Macintosh or Unix versions of this product. Microsoft should 
also be forced to pay the competitors who were denied these 
customers by Microsoft's actions.
    Finally, Microsoft must be barred from further anticompetitive 
actions in the future. They must be compelled to provide an Internet 
Explorer removal option in Windows. They should be barred from 
including Internet Explorer as a part of the operating system unless 
it is to be installed seperately. Microsoft should be forced to 
reduce the price of the monopoly Windows operating system to reflect 
the amount of money paid for Internet Explorer--OR they should be 
forced to offer one version with and one version without the browser 
at different prices if they so desire. They should also be barred 
from using Office as their distribution mechanism as Microsoft has 
made great effort to prevent competitors from making compatible 
products--another antitrust issue entirely. To prevent the ``Those 
restrictions were 95, we now make XP'' shell game Microsoft has 
played, the restructions must apply to every flagship Windows 
operating system made herein. Of course, there should be a ``sunset 
period'' on these restrictions for the time when the market has 
recovered from the anticompetitive activities.
    In closing, I would like to state that this settlement is of 
great importance to America and the world at large. I urge care in 
the consideration of this matter. Thank you.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    Jonathan Fether
    Temecula, CA



MTC-00015254

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Second Try at sending!!
    I would like to express my displeasure at the possible 
furthering the non-competetive environment in the computing 
community by way of the Microsoft settlement.
    The settlement I hahe seen would have Microsoft supplying 
computers and Microsoft products to school systems. On the surface 
this is very nice, however I was a young adult when another company 
almost gave hardware and software away to colleges for use in their 
computing needs. IBM managed to get a strangle hold on the computing 
market for years due to the familiarity of the college student 
having worked on nothing else but IBM equipment. It even created a 
snobbery of sorts at anyone who would even think of using another 
vendor.
    It is my belief that is the Department of Justice allows this 
settlement to go through, then we will have exactly the same 
situation again, amplified by the ``underprivileged youth 
accomplishment'' call of the liberals in this country.
    Please do not step into this trap.
    Sincerely
    Doyle Combs
    850 Brookwood Dr.
    Tallahassee FL 32308



MTC-00015255

From: Matthew McClintock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I believe the tentative settlement of the United States vs. 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit

[[Page 26065]]

I've read about in the news is bad. I don't think the settlement 
goes far enough in punishing Microsoft for past anti-competitive 
behaviour, and I don't think it will do anything to help our nations 
economy.
    Thank you,
    Matthew McClintock



MTC-00015256

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I urge the Department of Justice to reconsider the settlement of 
the antitrust case against Microsoft. The currently proposed 
settlement will not adequately punish Microsoft for the 
anticompetitive actions it has engaged in in the past, nor will it 
prevent similar or new abuses in the future.
    Specifically, the language of the settlement defines significant 
terms in a way that would allow Microsoft to make simple alterations 
in they way they provide software, such that they could conform to 
the letter of the settlement, while still engaging in monopolistic 
activities.
    I urge the DOJ to carefully reconsider the settlement, and to 
resume the course it had pursued before: the breakup of the 
Microsoft corporation. At very least, impose significant fines (on 
the order of 40% of annual revenue) on the company and devote this 
money to programs to provide adequate competiton to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Robert Parker
    67 Crestline Rd.
    Wayne, PA 19087



MTC-00015257

From: John Jorgensen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my opinion that the settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft is not enough of a deterant or punishment to Microsoft. 
Being in the Information Technology field, I've seen Microsoft 
crush, disolve, or buy out any technology that has any chance of 
threatening their monopoly. I've also watched as they extend their 
monopoly into other technologies on the back of their OS lock. The 
Latter is illegal and the former is dispicable if not illegal. If 
this settlement gets enacted, Microsoft will not have been punished 
for their misdeeds and they won't be detered sufficiently from doing 
it again.
    Thank you for your time,
    J*
    John Jorgensen
    R&D Manager, 2gn
    Principal IT Engineer, NetManage



MTC-00015258

From: Frank Jaffe
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To Renata B. Hesse,
    I am writing today to indicate my personal opposition to the 
Proposed Final Judgement of the Anti-trust case with Microsoft, 
excersicing my rights as a private citizen under the Tunney Act. It 
is my understanding, that: ``a remedies decree in an antitrust case 
must seek to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,'' to 
``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits 
of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future.'' 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 
405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972) and nited States v. United Shoe Mach. 
Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)) (citation omitted).
    The above paragraph outlines four specific requirements for the 
remedies:
    1. unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct
    2. terminate the illegal monopoly
    3. deny the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and
    4. ensure that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future
    I believe that the wording and scope of the Proposed Final 
Judgement fail to achieve any of these four objectives. 
Specifically, while I understand that the antitrust case can only 
address the matters which were brought before the court, the 
settlement, in my opinion, fails to provide an adequate remedy for 
Microsofts abuses in numerous ways, including:
    1. There is no remedy for consumers who have been harmed by 
Microsofts anticompetitive practices nor is Microsoft required to 
give back the unfair economic gains achieved by its illegal 
practices
    2. The proposed remedies do not adequately address the damages 
done to the industry by Microsoft's practices
    3. The proposed remedy does not adequately prevent continuing 
and future misbehavior by Microsoft, and
    4. The proposed remedy does not address any of the innumerable 
additional anticompetitive practices Microsoft has undertaken during 
the course of the original trial period.
    I am sure that expert legal commentors will be able to provide a 
much more in-depth analysis of the ways in which the Proposed Final 
Judgement fails to achieve the above objectives. I would like to 
focus primarily on objective four from the quote above.
    Today, as I use my Microsoft Windows 2000 PC, I observe the 
following behaviors which I believe consitute anticompetitive 
practices and illegal bundling (binding) of products, none of which 
appear to be adequately addressed via the proposed settlement
    1. Installing a browser also forces the installation of an email 
package (outlook express)
    2. Upgrading a browser places additional Microsoft icons on my 
desktop
    3. Using an email package launches and additional, unrelated 
program (using outlook express now requires microsoft messenger be 
running). Microsoft Messenger is also referred to as the MSN 
Messenger Service, tying the use of the Messenger to the Microsoft 
Network.
    4. Using an email package requires obtaining an email address 
from Microsoft (since outlook express now requires microsoft 
messenger, and microsoft messenger requires a passport account which 
results in a hotmail email account)
    5. Logging into certain Microsoft owned websites requires use of 
a Microsoft passport
    6. Windows Update function only updates device drivers and 
Microsoft provided software, and often ``recommends'' installation 
of additional Microsoft components.
    7. Installing an operating system (Microsoft windows) forces 
installation of additional components exclusively from Microsoft, 
such as Windows Media Player. There appears to be no legitimate 
argument for installing non-critical multimedia components as part 
of an operating system or upgrade installation, yet Windows Media 
Player is installed, and no other parties products are offered/
included/ or installed in addition or instead.
    8. Microsoft has released Windows XP which contains numerous 
additional examples of exclusive, anticompetitive bundling of 
services, along with a major push for the Microsoft .NET framework 
which provides further opportunities for Microsoft to lock in 
consumers.
    9. Microsoft has eliminated or reduced support and ease-of-use 
for certain competitive functionality such as Java
    10. While virtually every other aspect of computing continues to 
see rapid declines in price, Microsoft has increased the price, and 
reduced in certain key ways (such as dual processor support) the 
value of Windows XP as compared to previous releases. The outrageous 
pricing they have applied to upgrades to Windows XP, particularly 
from Windows NT and 2000 products, is a clear indication to me of 
their further abuse of their monopoly to price their products 
anticompetitively.
    And the above list is only the items I am aware of or have 
encountered today, as an end-user of a Microsoft Product.
    It seems to me, based upon Microsofts continuing egregious 
behavior, and the terms of the proposed remedies, that these 
remedies completely fail to achieve every single one the four 
required objectives outlined above. Therefore, as I previously 
stated, I oppose the settlement as outlined in the Proposed Final 
Judgement.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    -- Frank Jaffe
    --Falmouth, Maine
    --mailto:[email protected]>
    [email protected] (V/F) 207-771-3703



MTC-00015259

From: Nate Baxley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disapproval of the Microsoft 
settlement terms. The terms of this settlement seem to be too much 
in favor of Microsoft who, after all, was found guilty of misusing 
an ill gotten monopoly. Surely being found guilty of a crime of this 
magnitude deserves something more than a slap on the wrist, which 
this settlement appears to be for a company as large and as 
entrenched as Microsoft is. While I don't seek to punish Microsoft 
unneccesarily, I do believe that is in the best interest for 
consumers that the Microsoft stranglehold on the consumer PC be 
stopped, and not

[[Page 26066]]

allowed to spread to other areas of the computer business, 
including:
    Commercial Desktop
    Hardware
    Server class systems
    Gaming
    Cable Boxes
    Internet Content
    Internet Access
    etc.
    Please don't allow this inexplicably light outcome for a company 
that has been shown to have so many monopolistic tendencies.
    Respectfully,
    Nathan Baxley
    18409 S. Elm St.
    Gardner, KS 66030



MTC-00015260

From: Charles Callaway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Charles B. Callaway, Ph.D.
    (North Carolina State University, Computer Science)
    U.S. Citizen from Texas, working in Italy
    Dear sirs,
    I am writing this comment in accordance with the Tunney Act on 
the antitrust case against the Microsoft Corporation. Specifically, 
I am writing to express my disgust at the way the case has been 
handled since the change of administrations after the last U.S. 
presidential election.
    I am quite unhappy that a convicted monopolist company that does 
business in my technical field has profited itself at the expense of 
other legitimite companies by aggressively excluding them from the 
``free'' market. Multiple times I have watched economically healthy 
companies with innovative new products be completely squelched or 
forced to merge with other near-monopolist companies because 
Microsoft has taken their innovation, ``incorporated'' it into their 
operating system, and used their position in the desktop market to 
exclude the original innovative company from any share of the 
market. Furthermore, once Microsoft has accomplished this, they then 
claim that the innovation is now completely integrated into the 
operating system and to remove it would be catastrophic to their 
millions of customers.
    While Microsoft spokespersons have repeatedly claimed that their 
company drives innovation, the reality I have seen on the technical 
side of the issue is that it is patently obvious that they would 
prefer to take others'' innovations instead. This has a chilling 
effect on smaller software developers around the world, the sum 
total of whom innovate far more often than Microsoft and most other 
large companies. Allowing Microsoft to retain in toto the fruits of 
their monopolistic practices sends a message to other companies that 
their innovations will be stifled, and sends a message to large 
companies that they can freely trample the rights of others. I 
encourage you to revisit the penalty settlement and ensure that more 
stringent measures are taken.
    Sincerely yours,
    Charles B. Callaway, Ph.D.



MTC-00015261

From: John Lewis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read through the proposed settlement in this case and 
believe that the ``remedy'' offered will generally have no affect on 
Microsoft's business practices. If this court approves the 
settlement, it tacitly ignores 20 years of Microsoft acting in bad 
faith while laboring under previous conduct oriented settlements and 
court orders. A structural remedy is the only realistic solution for 
correcting Microsoft's pattern of anti-competitive behavior.



MTC-00015262

From: Jim McCarthy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement will not limit Microsoft's entrenched 
monopoly or restrain its penchant for abusing its monopoly power. 
The only effective solution is to break the company into two 
separate divisions: Operating Systems and Applications.
    James McCarthy



MTC-00015263

From: Tom Buskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed settlement. It does not provide for 
government or non profit use. In addition it allows Microsoft to 
continue its monopolistic practices.



MTC-00015264

From: Matthew Youngblood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    -Matthew Youngblood
    Rt. 5 Box 224
    Littleton, NC 27850



MTC-00015265

From: Daniel Brown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have been a software engineer for 6 years. I have been an avid 
computer user for about 20 years. I have used Microsoft's MS-DOS and 
Windows operatings systems extensively during that time. And over 
that period of time, Microsoft has done many things that I consider 
unethical, whether they were all illegal or not.
    Microsoft needs to be restrained since its anti-competitive 
practices have hampered the progress of computer technology. This is 
clear when looking at the fact that Microsoft operating systems have 
always lagged behind other operating systems in reliability, 
usability, and technical capability--and yet Microsoft operatings 
systems have always dominated the business and consumer markets.
    The primary specific acts which I find deplorable are 
Microsoft's attempts to undermine competing technologies such as 
Java by duping developers into creating Windows-specific Java 
applications (through embrace-and-extend tactics), the use of 
monopoly power to manipulate OEMs, and propoganda letter compaigns 
in which they attempt to put words in the mouths of ordinary 
citizens in order to influence the outcome of this very antitrust 
suit.
    The most recent formulation of the Microsoft settlement that I 
have seen does not restrain Microsoft in any substantial way. This 
will likely be true of any settlement that Microsoft agrees to. 
Microsoft is not interested in conforming with the law or with 
ethical standards or with furthering the common good. They exist 
only to exist. In addition, I agree with the main points of the open 
letter to the DOJ on this matter located at: http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html and will be adding my name in support of it.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel W. Brown
    Software Engineer
    Gloucester, MA



MTC-00015266

From: Neil Deasy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current proposed settlement.



MTC-00015267

From: Tom Wanek
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to register my displeasure at the Proposed Final 
Judgment in United States vs. Microsoft.
    As someone who has reviewed Microsoft's business practices with 
more than casual interest, I am deeply disturbed that the PFJ leaves 
so many holes open for Microsoft to continue with its history of 
anti-competitive practices.
    Thomas J. Wanek
    Program Manager, Telecom Italia
    granite systems, inc.
    1228 Elm St. 5th floor
    Manchester, NH 03101
    Phone: 603.625.0100
    Fax: 603.625.4812
    Office: 603.263.6505
    Mobile: 603.303.1025
    Email: [email protected]
    Text Messaging: www.msg.myvzw.com OR [email protected]



MTC-00015268

From: Michael Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I wish to register my dissapointment in, and my objection to the 
tentative settlement reached between Microsoft and the US Department 
of Justice in the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation antitrust 
lawsuit. I am a computer scientist with over 20 years experience in 
the computer industry.

[[Page 26067]]

    I find that the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) lacks sufficient 
provisions to prevent Microsoft from continuing its anticompetetive 
practices. Any successful Final Judgement must depend on very 
carefully crafted definitions of the industry specific terms used in 
the Final Judgement. The PFJ contains definitions of terms that 
differ in subtle but substantial ways from the Finding of Fact and 
in common usage; these definitions are apparently in Microsoft's 
favor.
    While agreeing to the PFJ will cause Microsoft to slightly 
change its behaviour, there is sufficient ``wiggle room'' left by 
the definitions used in the PFJ to allow Microsoft to continue its 
anticompetitive practices while claiming that it is meeting the 
letter of the law.
    There are other areas in which the PFJ inadequately addresses 
the grievances against Microsoft, for example:
    1) it fails to cause Microsoft to adequately remove the so-
called ``Application Barriers to Entry'' sited in the complaint,
    2) it fails to adequately protect Independant Software Vendors 
(ISV) by requiring full disclosure of information that will allow 
ISVs to product competitive products,
    3) it fails to adequately protect Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) from retalliation if they choose to ship 
computer systems with non-Microsoft operating systems or 
applications.
    Several alternative proposals have been created that adequately 
address many of the problems with the PFJ. I am certain that at 
least some of these alternatives have been brought to your 
attention. Please do not continue with the PFJ as it currently 
stands, but rather adopt the provisions of one or more of the 
alternate proposals (e.g. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html), 
which I believe better serves the publics interest in this matter.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Michael Clark
    213 Dutchess Drive
    Cary, North Carolina 27513



MTC-00015269

From: Andy Pastuszak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must say that I am deeply troubled by the proposed settlement 
the US Dept of Justice has proposed in respect to the current anti-
trust case against Microsoft. The continued allowance of comingling 
of software with the Microsoft operating system causes me great 
concern. It has been impossible since the instroduction of Windows 
95 OEM SR2 to uninstall Internet Explorer from with Operating 
System. And now with the introduction of Windows XP, we see the 
forced installation of things such as Internet Explorer, MSN 
Messenger, and Outlook Express. The options AUTOMATICALLY get 
installed without the consumer having a choice in the matter at all. 
If Microsoft wishes to provide a SECOND CD with this software on it 
as an optional install then we may be able to see true competition 
restored, because then OEM manufacturers would have the option to 
include CDs with AOL Instant Messenger, Netscape 6, Opera, Eudora 
and many other competing Internet products.
    A true settlement that would be in the best interest of the 
American consumer would STRONGLY limit Microsoft's ability to 
comingle software in their operating system and would allow other 
software manufacturers to easily bundle their products with the 
Windows Operating System. To really level the playing field, I would 
strongly urge the Dept of Justice to demand that the Internet 
Explorer browser be taken away completely from Microsoft and made 
available as open source so that it can easily be ported to other 
operating systems. Sure, IE is available for the Macintosh platform 
as well as Windows, but key features such as VBScript are only made 
available in the Windows version. When we sites are coded in these 
IE proprietary features, people are forced to use a Microsoft 
operating system to view the pages and help extend Microsoft's 
monopoly power even further.
    To reomve IE from Microsoft and to allow it be ported to 
operating systems such as Macintosh, Linux, BSD, UNIX, BeOS, EPOC, 
PalmOS and all the other operating systems out there would help 
alleviate the current monopoly position of Microsoft.
    Another major issue is the lack of full documentation of all the 
Microsoft programming APIs. Without full disclosure of ALL APIs for 
programming Windows software, Microsoft will ALWAYS have an 
atvantage in writing software for their own operating system. 
Allowing Microsoft to have the inside track on it's own APIs will 
allow them to build software will ALWAYS surpass its competitors in 
features.
    And lastly, Microsoft licenses prohibit the use of Microsoft 
products against the companby itself. The license to FrontPage 2002 
(Microsoft's web development package) prohibits the owner of the 
product from being able to use the software to create a site that 
may make negative comments against Microsost. Is this not a 
violation of my first ammendment rights to free speech? Sure, I have 
a choice to buy another web development package, but if we allow 
comingling to continue, some day FrontPage could be part of the 
operating system and then it would be forbidden to use the operating 
systems itself to make negative remarks about the company.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this. I feel the current 
settlement proposal is weak and would just allow Microsoft to 
maintain its monopoly power in the US.
    Andy Pastuszak
    3600 Valley Meadows Drive
    Bensalem, PA 19020
    (215) 633-9606
    [email protected]



MTC-00015270

From: Brian Kreulen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    My name is Brian Kreulen, and though I live in France, I am an 
American citizen who feels very strongly about the current anti-
trust trial against Microsoft. 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
    (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

[[Page 26068]]

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. Thank you for taking the time to read through my 
concerns, and I hope you will see the need for change in the current 
proposal.
    Brian KREULEN
    Zden France SA
    Office: +33 (0) 1 42 04 41 83
    Portable: +33 (0) 6 81 67 43 84



MTC-00015271

From: Joe Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just want to add my two cents to this Microsoft settlement. 
Having worked with graphics on computers since long before personal 
computers and Windows was around, I have seen a lot of good (and 
bad) programs come and go. And eventually they all went away as 
Microsoft used it's ever growing influence to force change out of 
the marketplace. I think they have used unethical and illegal 
practices to put competition out of business, leaving us with 
mediocre, insecure, OSs and programs. I think a remedy should be 
found that prevents them from continuing their practice, and in some 
way makes whole those who lost their businesses, companies, and 
livelyhood from MS business practices.
    Joe Stevens
    500 Springhill Rd.
    Rising Sun, MD 21911
    302-658-9276
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    Guidelines for a fair remedy:
    Any remedy in a case that has been so clear-cut in its findings 
must be more assertive in its defence of consumer interests. 
Regardless of specifics, such a remedy must address the following:
    1. Recurrence: Microsoft must not be able to continue to abuse 
its monopoly the way it has in the past.
    2. Reimbursement: Microsoft has no right to retain the excess 
profits it has earned as a result of its illegal actions. This money 
should be repaid to the consumer.
    3. Reparations: As Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications, 
it must underwrite efforts to restore competition and consumer 
choice. The rest of the market should not have to pay to recover 
from Microsoft's abuses.
    4. Reference: Microsoft must pay punitive damages over and above 
its reimbursement and reparations obligations, to serve as a warning 
to deter future monopolists. The remedy must in no case send out a 
signal that a large enough violator can get off lightly. Future tax 
dollars can be saved by discouraging abuses instead of having to 
prosecute them.
    The DoJ is supposed to be acting on behalf of the consumer, and 
they must pursue a remedy that addresses all the above issues. For 
example, a remedy that required Microsoft, among other things, to 
only sell through channels that offer at least one other operating 
system, could address the reparations issue and break the structural 
forces perpetuating their monopoly (If an OEM requires training to 
support another operating system, Microsoft may be forced to 
subsidise such training).
    The proposed settlement goes partway towards addressing the 
issue of recurrence, but does so only half-heartedly because it 
creates significant exceptions and loopholes for Microsoft to take 
advantage of. It completely ignores the other three issues. An 
impression is created that the DoJ is more sensitive to Microsoft's 
interests than to the interests of consumers who have been 
systematically robbed of both their choices and their money.
    Therefore this proposed settlement must be rejected as not being 
in the public interest.
    Ganesh Prasad
    Well, Microsoft now appears to be exacting its revenge, leaning 
this time on the same letter of the old law to not only get a better 
deal, but literally to disenfranchise many of the people and 
organizations who feel they have been damaged by Microsoft's 
actions. If this deal goes through as it is written, Microsoft will 
emerge from the case not just unscathed, but stronger than before.
    Here is what I mean. The remedies in the Proposed Final 
Judgement specifically protect companies in commerce--organizations 
in business for profit. On the surface, that makes sense because 
Microsoft was found guilty of monopolistic activities against 
``competing'' commercial software vendors like Netscape, and other 
commercial vendors--computer vendors like Compaq, for example. The 
Department of Justice is used to working in this kind of economic 
world, and has done a fair job of crafting a remedy that will rein 
in Microsoft without causing undue harm to the rest of the 
commercial portion of the industry. But Microsoft's greatest single 
threat on the operating system front comes from Linux--a non-
commercial product--and it faces a growing threat on the 
applications front from Open Source and freeware applications.
    The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information Server 
is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-profit. 
Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and Perl, 
both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``. . . (c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, . . . ''
    So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the right to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this section, 
Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(IAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the Department 
of Justice itself--have no rights. It is a good thing Afghanistan is 
such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't run Windows.
    I know, I know. The government buys commercial software and uses 
contractors who make profits. Open Source software is sold for 
profit by outfits like Red Hat. It is easy to argue that I am being 
a bit shrill here. But I know the way Microsoft thinks. They 
probably saw this one coming months ago and have been falling all 
over themselves hoping to get it through. If this language gets 
through, MICROSOFT WILL FIND A WAY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
    Robert Cringely, pbs.org



MTC-00015272

From: Joe Anding
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please take the time to examine all the details and facts in 
this case. Clearly, the timelyness of the result on the Windows 9x 
operating system is poor but it will direct the future of operating 
system development going forward for MS and those still trying to 
compete.
    I can see that the MS model established for operating systems 
clearly has put the

[[Page 26069]]

Windows platform on top. There is nothing wrong with a company 
pursuing excellence in its'' products and providing exemplary 
customer service to back them. This strategy has vaulted many firms 
to success in the past. But using strong arm tactics or any practice 
that breaks from ethical business operations should be discouraged 
at all levels.
    After examining the evidence provided and staying abreast of 
current information in the technical field of computer technology, 
it appears to me that something should be done that will allow MS to 
write software and provide services but at the same time encourages 
others to develop along-side them. I am not in a position to make 
decisions that will impact this case but you can. I greatly 
appreciate your open mind and thorough approach to examining the 
facts concerning this and all cases before you. The people of the 
United States are depending on your completeness. Make the right 
decision and Americans will be proud and strong. Otherwise, we will 
become captives.
    Regards,
    Joe Anding



MTC-00015273

From: Stefanie Gott-Dinsmore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement-NO!
    I vote NO! to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to 
exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Stefanie Gott-Dinsmore



MTC-00015274

From: Joe Rizzo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad settlement.
    Joseph Rizzo
    Chief Technology Officer
    ETS/Financial Campus
    116 Middle Road
    Southborough, MA 01772
    508.481.3578 x36 (office)
    215.868.3437 (cell)
    [email protected]



MTC-00015275

From: Kento
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is not near adequate 
enough. Period.
    A single company having this much control over the huge market 
that it does can, has, and will continue to result in abusive 
behaviour towards anyone not in their camp. To co-exist peacefully 
is not their goal. It is to crush any and all opposition, and I can 
not stand idly by watch while this continues. It affects us all 
whether we realize it or not.
    Thank you.
    Kent Benedict
    Iowa City, Iowa



MTC-00015276

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I have read the proposed Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT in 
favor of it, in its current state. The settlement does not, in any 
way, penalize Microsoft for its past infringements of the law.
    For many years, OEMs have been under control of this 
corporation, and simply ``formalizing'' this law in a document is 
not enough. Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and 
must now be held accountable in some measure.
    The current proposed settlement is unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Casey Milford
    Conway, AR 72032



MTC-00015277

From: Jake Williams
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I am writing this email in order to register my dissatisfaction 
with the proposed settlement in the U.S. vs Microsoft case. I work 
with Microsoft products on a daily basis, and am generally happy 
with their products, but the court has found that they have abused 
their monopoly position, and must be punished for their actions in 
order for competition to flourish. The settlement in its proposed 
state will not hamper Microsoft's business actions, and will not 
foster competition in the computer industry. Microsoft has hampered 
innovation since becoming a Monopoly, and our economy would be doing 
much better if there was competition, and Microsoft's illegal 
business practices were stopped. A review period and a promise to be 
a ``good monopolistic company'' did not work with the previous 
settlement with the U.S.D.O.J. and will not work in this situation. 
Without harsh penalties for repeated offenses, Microsoft will 
continue to hamper innovation in the computer industry.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jake Williams
    Jake Williams
    Network Specialist, MCSE/CCNA
    ELCOM, Inc.
    4940 Corporate Drive, Suite C
    Huntsville, Alabama 35805
    Phone: (256) 830-4001
    [email protected]
    http://www.elcomrep.com http://www.elcomrep.com>



MTC-00015278

From: Michael Thome
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am NOT in favor of the current version of the Microsoft 
Settlement.
    Any acceptable settlement must assure that competing products 
have approximately equal footing with new Microsoft products. This 
requires full disclosure and *right-to-use* of all Operating System 
APIs (including all current and future Windows versions).
    thank you,
    Michael Thome
    [email protected]
    1056 Main St
    Melrose, MA
    02176



MTC-00015279

From: Bruce Ediger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case has no 
merit. The proposed settlement does absolutely nothing to redress 
all the bad things that Microsoft has done with its monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Ediger
    541 Fox St
    Denver, CO 80204
    720-932-1954



MTC-00015280

From: Mike Fox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a concerned citizen of the United States, and as 
a computer professional, to inform you of my opinion that the 
pending Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. It does nothing to 
ensure that Microsoft will stop bullying OEM computer manufacturers 
into selling their computers with Windows as the only possible 
operating system, and forcing the end users to pay the price of that 
operating system. It also avoids forcing Microsoft to open up many 
key APIs for competing application developers to program against. 
This gives Microsoft a hand up in developing applications for the 
operating system (thus using their operating system monopoly to 
expand their application monopoly).
    What I would suggest is that Microsoft's APIs be forced open--
completely. If any changes are made to their APIs, they must be 
published. Also, contracts with OEMs stating that any computers sold 
must have a valid Windows licence should be banned so that OEMs will 
be free to sell their computers

[[Page 26070]]

with the operating systems of their customer's choice.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this.
    Mike Fox,
    Windham, Maine



MTC-00015281

From: Marvel, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to comment on the proposed settlement between DoJ and 
Microsoft. I believe that Microsoft is abusing it's Monopolistic 
position in the marketplace. That is not going to change with a 
simple settlement. It is going to take some serious action on the 
governments part to correct Microsoft's business practices.
    Microsoft is fond of saying that any action against them will 
stifle innovation, however, Microsoft uses it's Monopoly powers to 
stifle any innovation that could compete with it.
    They also use this power to create unfair and controlling 
license agreements. They also add things like the Activation program 
in Windows XP. This program says that if I upgrade my computer 
significantly, as many computer professionals are prone to do, I 
have to call Microsoft and ask them to continue to use the software 
I purchased with my hard earned dollars.
    It appears to me that the government is looking for an easy way 
out of this. But it is the governments job to do what is right for 
the people, not big business. What is right for the people in this 
case is to make Microsoft play on a fair playing field. They should 
not be able to use heavy handed tactics that they use now.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mike Marvel
    [email protected]



MTC-00015282

From: Larry Osolkowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. 
It is not a punishment for illegal monopolistic behavior, but rather 
a windfall for Microsoft that will enhance its penetration into one 
of the few remaining markets that the company does not already 
dominate. Please reconsider this poorly-crafted solution, and 
propose a plan that will reduce Microsoft's monopoly and improve 
competition in the personal computer marketplace.
    Lawrence S. Osolkowski
    Software Engineer
    Northrop Grumman Corporation
    Electronic Systems
    Amherst Systems
    30 Wilson Road
    Buffalo, New York 14221
    Phone: 716-631-0610 Ext. 350
    Fax: 716-631-0629



MTC-00015283

From: Tim Enders
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    This is my vote AGAINST the proposed settlement. It doesn't 
sufficiently remedy Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. A healthy 
environment for innovation requires diversity in the marketplace--US 
consumers deserve the power of choice this diversity would provide.
    Regards,
    Timothy M. Enders
    209 Edgerton St
    Rochester NY 14607



MTC-00015284

From: John Christie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. At no time 
in history has the DOJ so clearly shirked its duty as in this case 
of a world power monopolist who repeatedly, and without remorse or 
conscience, egregiously extends that monopoly illegally.
    I was prompted to write today as I overheard others arguing the 
case. While I was listening I noticed that those who are in favor of 
harsh penalties to Microsoft seemed to have a hard time coming up 
with specifics on what the monopoly has really cost America. The 
only rebuttals seem to be, ``It cost competition in the marketplace, 
which would surely have made things better somehow.'' Unfortunately, 
that somehow is poorly defined. But, it needn't be that way.
    Imagine there was competition in the software marketplace. . .  
Now, think of all of the little things every day that you put up 
with in Microsoft products that you do not like but feel that you 
have to live with--every time something have happened and you said, 
``what are you going to do?'' That file is incompatible? my computer 
crashed! What, another virus! Why is this so slow! Why isn't there 
an easier solution? You want how much to update Windows! What do you 
mean I don't own the software!
    The list of things that bother Americans day to day here is 
probably rather extensive. If there were real competition how long 
do you believe that these problems would last. Or, consider a 
corollary, imagine if Ford had a world wide monopoly in the 
automobile market from very close to its inception, and that it was 
free to extend and maintain that monopoly any way it wished. Does 
anyone really believe that we would have moved much beyond the Model 
T?
    In addition, there are some real costs that one can assign to 
this monopoly. Every time you hear on CNN of a Microsoft security 
hole that cost America 10's of millions of dollars, you can blame 
the monopoly. Every time there is a virus that chews up millions of 
hours of labor and internet bandwidth, feel free to blame the 
monopoly. Every notice about a cost to America for some computing 
defect that is extremely widespread should cause every American to 
raise a finger and point it at Microsoft. Would we be putting up 
with any of this if it were not a monopoly? Would we feel 
technologically helpless if it were not an illegally enforced and 
extended monopoly?
    Microsoft made over 2 billion dollars last quarter. With that 
money they could have afforded to clean up all of the security and 
virus messes they made over the three months. But, they have no 
accountability on top of being a monopoly. Imagine Ford saying to 
America, ``if you have a problem with the Firestone tires just go 
get different ones, we can't be responsible for these kinds of 
things.''
    Microsoft's monopoly has provided political power as well as 
commercial. Please enforce the Sherman Act to the fullest against 
this company. There will be no joy in Mudville until that occurs.
    John Christie



MTC-00015285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I am against the Proposed Final Judgement against 
Microsoft. While there appears to be numerous flaws in the overall 
Judgement, I am particularly concerned that there are no provisions 
to either require Microsoft to document their file formats (like 
.doc, .xls, and .wmp) or require them to use open standards based 
formats (like XML).
    As a person who regularly communicates with Microsoft customers, 
this is the most frustrating aspect of the Monopoly. . .Their 
proprietary formats essentially close off conversations and 
information from Non-Microsoft users.
    Dave Lopata
    5323 Under Way
    Sugar Hill, GA 30518



MTC-00015286

From: Maurice Reeves
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not currently feel that the Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement 
is satisfactory.
    Please convey my concerns to those in charge of this case that 
more should be done to protect the end user and developers.
    Thank you,
    Maurice Reeves
    buzzcutbuddha--www.perlmonks.org
    Fearless Leader--Harrisburg Perl Mongers
    Secretary--Java Users Group



MTC-00015287

From: Costyn van Dongen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I just would like to voice my opinion that the proposed 
Microsoft settlement is a bad idea.
    Sincerely,
    Costyn van Dongen.



MTC-00015288

From: Chris Beachy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am

[[Page 26071]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my objections to the currently proposed 
settlement with Microsoft.
    I believe the settlement is ineffective, and of little worth.
    Some examples are:
    Section III.A.2 which allows Microsoft to retaliate against any 
OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system. I prefer to buy computers 
without Microsoft products on them and don't think I should be 
penalized for this.
    Section III.b which requires Microsoft to license Windows on 
uniform terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says 
nothing about smaller OEMs.
    I prefer to deal with smaller OEMs, and support small 
businesses. A small OEM owned by a friend was told by Microsoft that 
if they wanted to license Windows at the lowest (and therefore 
competative) price, they must sell Windows on every Personal 
Computer they sold, and could not sell any other operating system. 
This OEM has since gone out of business.
    These are just two from a large list of complaints. Please re-
consider this settlement!
    Thank you,
    Chris Beachy
    [email protected]
    2519 Symphony Lane,
    Gambrills, Md. 21054



MTC-00015289

From: kt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For decades Microsoft has used its power over OEMs to force 
substandard products into the marketplace and assure their 
dominance. It has been proven that Microsoft abuses its monopoly 
power to crush potential competitors.
    What is needed is a remedy that addresses this behavior of 
Microsoft's and stops it. We definitely should not reward Microsoft 
or look the other way.
    Karl Tate



MTC-00015290

From: Shafto, Eric
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computing professional with over 15 years experience, as 
well as an enthusiast and industry watcher. I have worked 
professionally with Microsoft, Macintosh, and Unix operating 
systems. I oppose the proposed settlement in the MS antitrust case.
    If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-
mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to 
http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender.



MTC-00015291

From: Doug Loss
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  4:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since Microsoft has been found by the court to have a monopoly 
and to have illegally used its monopoly status, a finding which has 
been upheld on appeal, I feel it would be remiss not to have a final 
judgement that sanctions Microsoft for this behavior and applies 
real restrictions against its conducting similar behavior in the 
future. As has been shown in Microsoft's responses to previous 
judgements against it (the 1994 concent decree in particular), 
Microsoft can't be trusted to abide by any agreements it enters into 
without intensive oversight. Indeed, Microsoft's behavior since the 
findings of fact in this case were handed down clearly show its 
intent to ignore the court's decisions.
    I think a proper final judgement would require Microsoft to 
publish the complete specifications to all the APIs (application 
programming interfaces) to all its products and the complete 
specifications to all its heretofore proprietary data formats, and 
would enjoin Microsoft from making any changes to those formats 
without publishing those changes in the same manner. This would not 
require Microsoft to release its ``crown jewels,'' the source code 
of its products, but would give other vendors a much better chance 
of competing with Microsoft on a level playing field.
    Doug Loss
    Data Network Coordinator
    Bloomsburg University
    [email protected]



MTC-00015292

From: Jesse Griffis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The fact that Microsoft should be allowed to continue to utilize 
proprietary and undocumented file formats in its programs is the 
major issue I have with the proposed settlement. Were the file 
formats open and ``honest'', other organizations (companies, or even 
clubs, hobbyists, and schools) would be able to build new and 
potentially ground-breaking products building off an existing base, 
and give other companies a chance to interoperate with Microsoft's.
    As things stand, the massive market share held by Microsoft in 
the OS arena represents a gigantic barrier to entry preventing any 
other new business-related software from gaining a foothold in the 
market, which is rotten for consumer choice, and rotten for 
innovation.
    Jesse Griffis
    Washington DC



MTC-00015294

From: tripp millican
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, yet unfavorable to Microsoft.
    Thank you
    Tripp Millican
    1108 West Franklin Apt 202
    Richmond Va 23220



MTC-00015295

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement between the US 
government and nine of the original eighteen states. It does not re-
kindle competition in the computer industry, nor does it make 
reparations for their proven criminal acts.
    I also do not think that the government should be involved in 
the decision making within private organizations, hence the three 
man panel would be against my political beliefs.
    Thank you for taking the time to listen.
    Sincerly,
    ``Bubby'' Ullman



MTC-00015296

From: Jason Green
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed Settlement against Microsoft does not 
do anything to allow competition to enter the marketplace. They 
should be required to open their programmable interfaces to allow 
other companies to write compatible software.
    Jason Green
    IT Coordinator, Lansing Management
    Voice: 517-272-2900, Ext 217
    Fax: 517-272-0630
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00015297

From: Andrew Towle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a very BAD idea!
    Andrew



MTC-00015298

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsofrt Settlement
    This settlement is a joke. Can we have something that actually 
fosters competition? What's good for Microsoft is not necessarily 
good for the country, and as such, Microsoft must be treated with 
more backbone than some mere errant federal bureau.
    Jon Ciesla
    Des Moines, IA



MTC-00015299

From: jr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad settlement



MTC-00015300

From: Joshua W. Burton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26072]]

To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my concern about the clear inadequacy of 
the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft case. As a software 
engineer and consultant, I would like to offer my customers the 
widest possible choice of compatible operating systems and file 
formats on which to run our tools, but the restrictive licensing of 
the Microsoft Platform SDK, whose EULA asserts:
    ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute . . .  
the Redistributable Components. . .  provided that (a) you 
distribute the Redistributable Components only in conjunction with 
and as a part of your Application solely for use with a Microsoft 
Operating System Product. . . '' makes this impossible. Equally 
serious, the file format of Microsoft Word, with which our 
requirements management tool interoperates, is closed and 
proprietary, which prevents us from building a cross-platform 
integration with Word files for open-source operating systems even 
if the EULA permitted it.
    There are many other necessary elements missing from the 
proposed final judgment: the summary at URL: http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html#isv.oss > is quite good. I urge you to 
immediately reconsider the settlement.
    Very truly yours,
    Joshua W. Burton



MTC-00015301

From: Robert N. Lockwood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is not in the best 
interest of consumers.
    Robert Lockwood
    [email protected]



MTC-00015302

From: Sebastian Hassinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed judgement for settlement with Microsoft is poorly 
thought-out, ill-informed, and truly a bad deal for American 
consumers and the computer industry as a whole.
    Sebastian Hassinger
    Senior Strategist
    IBM Pervasive Computing
    Route 100 Somers, NY
    email: [email protected]
    office: +1.914.766.3297 (t/l 826-3297)
    fax: +1.425.790.0517
    mobile: +1.845.893.9498



MTC-00015303

From: Taliver Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While the majority of remedies are a good start, THEY DO NOT GO 
FAR ENOUGH for protecting competitors against a shark like 
Microsoft. If the DoJ had acted back in the early 90's, these would 
have been sufficient, however, Microsoft now has too much equity for 
others to compete on a level playing field.
    Taliver Heath
    Computer Science Grad Student
    Rutgers University



MTC-00015304

From: Eric Allman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.
    Eric Allman



MTC-00015305

From: Brent Neal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to comment upon the proposed final settlement to 
the Microsoft antitrust trial. I understand that under the Tunney 
Act, the court is required to consider public commentary before 
ruling on the settlement.
    I do not believe the proposed settlement is sufficient to 
prevent Microsoft from continuing its illegal practices. The 
settlement, to my reading, does not prevent Microsoft from pursuing 
de facto dominance in areas unrelated to the computer software and 
enterprise desktop industry. One particularly troubling instance of 
this is Microsoft's push to encourage record companies to use 
Microsoft's proprietary Windows Media format. Already, Universal has 
released CDs with the digital music encoded in Windows Media format, 
thus making them unusable to people without the Windows Operating 
System. This behavior is of the sort that the Sherman Antitrust Act 
was designed to prevent, yet the settlement in this case does not 
explicitly forbid it.
    Please rectify this and any other shortcomings in the settlement 
or even better, prosecute Microsoft fully for their continued 
violations of antitrust law.
    Sincerely,
    Brent Neal
    Brent Neal
    Concurrent Computing Laboratory for Materials Simulations
    Dept. of Physics--Dept. of Computer Science
    Louisiana State University



MTC-00015306

From: JR
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad bad bad bad settlement.



MTC-00015307

From: lee sulander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Please do not allow the states suing Microsoft nor AOL to 
proceed in this totally unjustifiable action against a great, 
innovative company that has proven beyond any doubt that they are a 
vital part of our dot net world of enterprise. These naysayers are 
out to destroy this great American success story.
    Let them compete on whatever grounds the courts decide, but do 
not destroy.
    Sincerely,
    L. Sulander, Naples Florida



MTC-00015308

From: Brock Organ
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea for the 
following reason:
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system.
    Thank you for your time,
    Regards,
    Brock Organ



MTC-00015309

From: Ice, Heath Cruts (UMR-Student)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to take a few moments to voice my non-support 
of the Microsoft settlement. I do not believe that the current 
proposal does enough to effectively wane Microsoft's anti-
competitive actions. Thank you for your time.
    Heath C. Ice
    Computer & Electrical Engineering Student
    University of Missouri--Rolla
    [email protected]
    http://www.nonec.com



MTC-00015310

From: Duckett, Tony
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea! Microsoft is a 
major CROOK and should be punished not rewarded!
    Tony Duckett
    System Administrator
    703-326-2367
    [email protected]



MTC-00015311

From: Josh Stern
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Dept. of Justice,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement with Microsoft 
corporation, and endorse the criticisms of both Ralph Nader and 
James Love, http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html, as well as those by Dan Kegel http://
www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunney.html
    Sincerely,
    Joshua J. Stern
    SS# 165-52-8424
    401 South First St.
    Apt. 410
    Minneapolis, MN 55401
    [email protected]



MTC-00015312

From: [email protected]@

[[Page 26073]]

inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the Microsoft Settlement. 
Microsoft has used its monopoly power to greatly change the 
landscape of the computing industry in its favor, at the expense of 
everyone else, including the public. They should be reprimanded with 
more than a simple slap on the wrist, and they certainly should not 
be allowed to settle with terms that are advantageous to them.
    Thank you for allowing me to voice my concern.
    Jason Titus
    Brooklyn Park, MN
    763-424-4228



MTC-00015313

From: Smokinn--
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I sincerely believe that this settlement is not in the best 
interest of the American people for there is a lack of means of 
enforcement. Microsoft had already been tried and found guilty of 
unlawful monopolistic actions even though there were restrictions 
set on their behaviour. Microsoft believes that they are above the 
law, that they can just buy their way and once they are found guilty 
after years and years of trial the settlement is one they can very 
easily break, just like the last one. We need a punishment that can 
and will be enforced.
    Guillaume Thioret



MTC-00015314

From: Lane Weast
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea because it 
does far to little to stop Microsoft's exclusionary practices.
    Lane Weast
    Programmer Analyst I
    [email protected]
    941-335-2373



MTC-00015315

From: Bob Mileti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement stinks. You've really let the computer world 
down!
    Bob Mileti



MTC-00015316

From: Jeff Albro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to object to the currently proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. Microsoft makes many wonderful products, but they have 
simply not been willing to compete on those merits. Time and time 
again they have used unfair and harmful tactics to minimize 
competition and extract maximum profit.
    The proposed settlement does not go far enough and has no teeth 
for enforcement.
    Jeff
    Jeff Albro : Interaction [email protected]
    Customer-centric Consulting617-835-4153
    Interface and System DesignBoston, MA



MTC-00015317

From: Bobby Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to say that I feel the proposed settlement is a bad 
idea. There needs to be more done to ensure that end users have 
freedom of choice. For example, encouraging manufacturers to ship 
dual boot systems.



MTC-00015318

From: Shawn Hooton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.



MTC-00015319

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    Over the years I have observed Microsoft's strategy to become 
what it is today.
    One part of that strategy is to ``borrow'' ideas from others, 
modify them very slightly, and then claim legal ownership. For 
example, the basic ideas for the ``windowing'' environment, in which 
a person interacts with a computer, seems to have originated at 
Xerox, were copied by Apple, and copied again by Microsoft. Today 
one about-to-be competitor is nearly ready to release a 
``windowing'' environment called ``Lindows'', but Microsoft is 
interfering by claiming it owns the concept, and has filed a 
lawsuit. (Neither does it own the word ``Windows'', because there 
are plenty of companies that include it in their name, and which 
have been in business much longer than Microsoft. See http://
www.andersenwindows.com for example) Which is more obscene: 
Microsoft's actions, or the Justice Department's failure to make 
Microsoft stop?
    As another example of the preceding, there were rumors 
circulating that part of the ``increased stability'' of Microsoft 
Windows Operating System came from copying code written for the 
Linux Operating System. The legalese surrounding Linux require that 
such code be made public. Meanwhile, Bill Gates was making speeches 
to the effect that such legalese stifled innovation. If the rumors 
are true, then the implication is that Bill Gates'' definition of 
``innovation'' is that of copying the work of others, and then 
claming ownership, as already described.
    Where in the proposed settlement is anything to prevent such 
``innovation''? Another part of Microsoft's strategy is to modify 
its Operating System. Advertised as ``adding improvements'', it is 
only partly true. As a programmer I know full well that the 
Operating System is what loads and executes the ordinary software 
``application'' that the average person might want to interact with, 
such as as a word-processor, game, e-mailer, etcetera. In almost 
every case, an ``application'' program must work with the Operating 
System, or it will not work at all.
    Well, since Microsoft sells both Operating System and 
application software, it is very easy for Microsoft to plan ahead by 
``modifying'' its Operating System to cause competitor applications 
to no longer work right. Meanwhile, simply by not telling the 
competition that a modification is in the works, it can equivalently 
modify its own application software, so that it will continue to 
work right. Then, when the ``new and improved'' Operating System is 
released, Microsoft can also release ``improved'' application 
software, that works with the new Operating System, while all the 
competitors have to play catch-up, to fix the glitches deliberately 
introduced by Microsoft.
    That is the nutshell-description of what happened to Netscape, 
Word Perfect, Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Borland, Corel, and other large 
software houses, because they were never allowed a chance to be 
``in'' on forthcoming changes to Microsoft's latest-and-greatest 
Operating System (regardless of version). The preceding is how 
Microsoft came to monopolize the desktop computer. The courts have 
judged that Microsoft does indeed have monopoly status and power. 
But the proposed settlement does nothing to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to implement its overall strategy, which is the basis 
behind that status and power.
    If you would please recall that the intent of the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act is to increase competition in the marketplace, and ask 
yourself if the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case acts to 
fulfill that intent, then perhaps you would conclude, as I conclude, 
that the proposed settlement is worthless--except to Microsoft.
    The sender believes that this E-mail and any attachments were 
free of any virus, worm, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when 
sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected 
during

[[Page 26074]]

transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, 
the recipient accepts full responsibility for taking protective and 
remedial action about viruses and other defects. Jackson Hewitt is 
not liable for any loss or damage arising in any way from this 
message or its attachments.



MTC-00015320

From: Mark R. Andrachek, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement will do nothing to curb 
Microsofts illegal practices, and thus I am against it, as a harsher 
penalty should be sought.
    Mark R. Andrachek, Jr.
    [email protected]



MTC-00015321

From: Alex Kritikos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to note that I disagree with the proposed 
settlement.
    Regards,
    Alex Kritikos
    my-Channels--Technologies working together
    http://www.my-channels.com



MTC-00015322

From: Robert Chastain
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is bad for me both as a consumer and as a 
computer professional. It has been clear for years (to people in the 
computer industry) that Microsoft has had monopoly power and has 
repeatedly used it to bend others to their will. In addition, when 
the company that holds the monopoly also happens to have a history 
of some of the buggiest, least secure software ever produced, this 
is surely a bad thing for our country and our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Chastain



MTC-00015323

From: Sweeney Jr., John E.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing this letter so that my comments on the Proposed 
Final Judgement in the Microsoft anti-trust case will be recorded in 
the public record under the Tunney Act. I am originally submitting 
this letter as email, with a print copy to follow.
    As a consumer of computing products, and a worker in the I.T. 
industry, I have paid close attention to this case, as I am one of 
millions of consumers that have been harmed by Microsoft's business 
practices. After watching several years of legal maneuvering, I am 
extremely disappointed with the terms of the settlement that has 
been reached. My reasons are as follows:
    The PFJ does not address Microsoft's long-standing strategy to 
maintain and enhance its monopoly position by imposing restrictive 
licensing and pricing practices on OEMs who sell Windows-equipped 
computers. For instance, Microsoft gives discounts on bulk Windows 
licenses to OEMs based on sales of unrelated Microsoft products, 
such as Office. They also can penalize OEMs who sell computers pre-
installed with competing operating systems, and their licensing 
terms prevent sales of computers equipped to dual-boot both Windows 
and a competing system. This hinders consumers who may choose other 
products, both by reducing the market availability of those 
products, and substantially increasing the cost to aquire them. The 
PFJ does not address Microsoft's long-standing strategy to maintain 
and enhance its monopoly position by breaking compatibility with 
competing products. It makes gestures in that direction, by 
supposedly requiring Microsoft to publish it's secret Windows APIs, 
but then it narrowly defines API, and provides several loopholes so 
that many important ones need not be disclosed, hindering 
competitors from being able to design competing, yet compatible 
products. Furthermore, the disclosure of Windows APIs isn't required 
until AFTER the deadline for ISVs to demonstrate that competing 
middleware is compatible. It also doesn't require Microsoft to 
disclose which APIs are covered by patents it holds, leaving 
Windows-compatible systems in and uncertain state of legality, which 
could deter otherwise interested consumers from using them, while if 
such disclosure were required competing systems could be designed 
which don't infringe on those patents. Finally, the PFJ does not 
require Microsoft to release documentation on the format of various 
output files it's programs create (such as the Word .doc file 
format, or Excel .xls file format), making it difficult for 
competitors to design compatible products, and when they do, making 
it easy for Microsoft to once again subtly change the format so that 
the competing product doesn't work correctly, and consumers are 
forced into another costly upgrade cycle.
    In addition to these deficiencies, the PFJ as it is currently 
written does not even appear to be enforceable. There is no 
mechanism to insure that Microsoft will be forced to comply with its 
provisions and no penalty for disregarding them (although why it 
would wish to, since the PFJ allows the company to continue abusing 
the computing public for its own financial gain with almost no real 
hindrances, is anyone's guess)
    I urge the judge to deny this PFJ and order the DOJ to either 
propose a new settlement (with some teeth, this time), and quickly, 
or to continue with the trial. While the object is not to punish 
Microsoft unnecessarily, the fact remains that the company is guilty 
of illegal maintenance of a monopoly, and the Final Judgement in 
this case should end Microsoft's ability to maintain it further. As 
the PFJ is currently written, it does nothing of the sort
    John Sweeney
    Systems Administrator
    321-799-6033
    [email protected]



MTC-00015324

From: Bill Lance
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current MS settlement seriously flawed. As it 
stands, it not only does little correct the cost of previous illegal 
behavior, it actually will create many opportunities for court 
protected future preditory and destructive behavior.



MTC-00015325

From: Semmy Sebastian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00015326

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to register my emphatic disagreement with the proposed 
settlement. From my reading, the settlement does nothing to restore 
a competitive environment, does nothing to punish microsft for past 
misconduct, and provides no assurances that microsoft's behaviour 
will be constrained in the future. There is far too much history of 
evasion for me [or any rational person] to accept this settlement as 
effective.
    Thanks for your consideration
    Steven Filling
    California State University, Stanislaus
    Sent by Steven's Thinkpad.........
    E-Mail: [email protected]



MTC-00015327

From: Jason C Penney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to take this time to state that I feel that the 
currently proposed settlement does not punish Microsoft enough for 
what they have done. I feel that it is sufficiently vague that it 
may actually encourage Microsoft to continue further down the path 
that got them where they are today.
    Thank you,
    Jason Penney
    Dracut, MA
    01826
    Jason C Penney ([email protected]) Xarton Dragon UDIC> 
http://www.jczorkmid.net>



MTC-00015328

From: Eric Merritt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have a few issues with the Microsoft Antitrust resolution and 
I am taking this opportunity to voice them.
    Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing 
middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' seven 
months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the

[[Page 26075]]

requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs. In 
this case, this section is no solution at all. It is simply a way 
for microsoft to justify it anitcompetitive practices by saying it 
is conforming to the PFJ.
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows. Once again the same issues as 
above. The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' and ``API'' means that Section III.D.'s requirement to 
release information about Windows interfaces would not cover many 
important interfaces.
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those ho cannot refer to MSDN because they work on 
applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. This 
would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems.
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' 20 and 39).
    Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license 
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users, as 
illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, Inc.:
    When selecting a method of porting a major application to Linux, 
one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a competing implementation 
of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit called ``MainWin'. 
MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from 
Microsoft. However, this customer elected to go with the Mainsoft 
option instead. I was told that one of the key decision making 
factors was that Mainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft 
had certain critical patents that Wine was violating. My customer 
could not risk crossing Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I 
didn't even have a chance to determine which patents were supposedly 
violated; nor to disprove the validity of this claim. The PFJ, by 
allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, is inhibiting the 
market acceptance of competing operating systems.
    The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system. Section III.B. requires 
Microsoft to license Windows on uniform terms and at published 
prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing about smaller OEMs. This 
leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, including 
important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if they offer competing 
products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ 
prohibit certain exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft 
towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with popular non-
Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples are given 
below.
    The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states . . .  
you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models . . .  Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); . . .  Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, 
are shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated 
redistributable components. Applications that wish to use them must 
include the add-ons, even though they might later become a standard 
part of Windows. Microsoft often provides those SDKs under End User 
License Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open Source 
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their 
applications under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the 
enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API 
installed, which is often not the case. Applications potentially 
harmed by this kind of EULA include the competing middleware product 
Netscape 6 and the competing office suite StarOffice; these EULAs 
thus can cause support problems for, and discourage the use of, 
competing middleware and office suites. Additionally, since Open 
Source applications tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating 
systems, any resulting loss of market share by Open Source 
applications indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, 
is the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution 
Terms. You may reproduce and distribute . . .  the Redistributable 
Components. . .  provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product. . . '' This makes it illegal to run many programs built 
with Visual C++ on Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems.
    The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large users 
such as corporations, universities, or state and local goverments, 
collectively referred to as ``enterprises'. Yet enterprise license 
agreements often resemble the per-processor licenses which were 
prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft 
antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for each desktop or 
portable computer which could run a Microsoft operating system, 
regardless of whether any Microsoft software is actually installed 
on the affected computer. These agreements are anticompetitive 
because they remove any financial incentive for individuals or 
departments to run non-Microsoft software.
    MSNBC (a subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called 
NewsAlert. Its EULA states ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right 
to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers 
running validly licensed copies of the operating system for which 
the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; 
Microsoft Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. . 
. . '' Only the Windows version appears to be available for 
download. Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) 
which can run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows 
version of NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance,

[[Page 26076]]

``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use copies 
of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed 
copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating system.''
    An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively.
    Microsoft's original operating system was called MS-DOS. 
Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the operating 
system. Digital Research offered a competing operating system, DR-
DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run programs 
written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating 
systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS API to 
interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was concerned with 
the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta 
copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and misleading 
error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor 
company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against Microsoft 
in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's consolidated 
response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment.) The 
judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented sufficient 
evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were part of an 
anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of 
court in 1999, and no court has fully explored the alleged conduct. 
The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software.
    Please do not allow this PFJ as it is currently worded



MTC-00015329

From: Heather James
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a programmer since 1992 and a web developer since 1995, I 
want to add my voice to the list of folks who feel Microsoft has 
continually abused its monopolistic position in the software 
industry. I feel the current settlement gives Microsoft too many 
opportunities to undermine the free software movement. Free software 
is a learning tool for current and future programmers as well as a 
venue for sharing knowledge resources.
    Its also important that there be other sources for software, as 
Microsoft has continually shown that user security is a low priority 
to them. This is witnessed by all the virus alerts last year due to 
``Sircam'', ``Code Red'', ``I Love You'' and many other viruses and 
trojan attacks that targeted the large security leaks in Microsoft 
Outlook and the Windows operating system.
    It also amazes me that no penalties have been levied against 
Microsoft considering their many past abuses and the financial 
resources that they have.
    It appears that they have violated the spirit of many previous 
agreements and as there is no penalty for these violations, what is 
there to send a message about possible future violations. What is to 
keep them from future abuses and monopolistic behaviour? Why would 
they even care about this settlement if it has no ``teeth''?
    As Thomas F. Reilly, attorney general of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts said, ``The Microsoft case always has been about 
simple, American principles: opportunity, competition, and fair 
play. Our economy is built on those principles. The future of high 
technology demands that we fight for them.''
    Because of the importance of this, the case should not end 
without a remedy that restores competition.
    Heather James
    [email protected]



MTC-00015330

From: Kevin Ratliff
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Since the start of this case Microsoft has not changed it's 
business practices and several new complaints have been made against 
this defendant. From the standpoint of a consumer, Microsoft has 
always dominated the marketplace for PC operating systems as well as 
many markets for other software products. The claim by Microsoft 
that some of the proposed remedies would stifle innovation is in my 
opinion false. As a computer technician, I work with Microsoft 
products on a daily basis and can assure you that Microsoft is not 
the innovator it claims to be. Had this defendant not abused it's 
position in the marketplace, the market itself would of forced 
actual innovation, as well as fair competition resulting in a 
greater number of products, and competitors in the marketplace.
    Kevin Ratliff
    Woodridge, Illinois



MTC-00015331

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: disagree with Microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern, I must disagree with the Dept of Justice 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. While I don't feel the 
agreement appropriately addresses the issue of Microsoft's 
misconduct, my primary objection is that the agreement lets 
Microsoft pay their penalty ``in kind'' by donating software and 
technical support. Since Microsoft themselves establish the price 
tag for what the software and support are worth, the agreement 
basically just says Microsoft has to pay a fine and get to determine 
how much that fine will be. They have the money; if they want to pay 
off their debt by helping schools, make them do it with cash. The 
agreement as it stands is simply a concession to Microsoft on the 
order of just putting a black star in the book next to their name. 
If they are indeed guilty of the unfair practices they've been 
charged with, that's not enough. regards, Bill Bohling
    The views espressed in this letter are mine alone and do not in 
any way reflect the views and opinions of those whose mail server 
I'm on.



MTC-00015332

From: Mike Skallas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Hello,
    I find the current settlement with Microsoft to be very light 
considering their crimes. A fair settlement would force Microsoft to 
break-up into an OS company and a software company. Also, a 
government body must be formed to oversee all API releases and the 
settlement itself must force MS to releave everything about its OS 
in regards to APIs for the next 5 to 10 years.
    The newly formed second company must release all of its Office 
file formats to the point where a third-party can create, edit, and 
read these formats just as well as the current Microsoft can. Again, 
a government accounting body should oversee this for at least the 
next 5 to 10 years.
    Michael Skallas
    6125 N. Talman
    Chicago, IL
    60659



MTC-00015333

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Problems with the Proposed Final Judgement [Submitted by 
email to [email protected]]
22 January 2002
Renata B Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I appreciate the chance to write to you regarding the proposed 
final judgment in US v. Microsoft, currently before the public for 
comment. There are many serious problems with the proposed final 
judgment, which by itself is insufficient 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'' (p.99 of the Court of 
Appeals ruling). To save space, I shall focus on only one issue 
here, the disclosure of undocumented interfaces to promote 
competition on the desktop.
    The parties have agreed that Microsoft must disclose the details 
of their application programming interfaces (API) so that software 
authors can write new ``middleware'' that works correctly alongside

[[Page 26077]]

Microsoft software on the desktop. However, Section III.D of the 
proposed judgment places arbitrary and undue restrictions on the 
recipients of this information. For example, they must be commercial 
concerns, and specific kinds of commercial concerns at that: ISVs, 
IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, or OEMs. They would be unable to use the APIs to 
reduce Microsoft's monopoly power in innovative ways that exceed the 
extremely limited technical scope of the Judgment (for example, by 
promoting the ability of endusers to run Microsoft applications atop 
non-Microsoft operating systems).
    To constitute an effective remedy to monopoly, a better 
settlement would require Microsoft to simply open the Windows APIs 
(though not their proprietary source code that implements those 
interfaces) as well as their application file formats (though not 
their proprietary source code that reads and writes those formats) 
for the unrestricted inspection of the public at large.
    Opening up more APIs to the public would have been the least 
unpleasant and most direct means to open up the Windows desktop for 
competition, by lowering the artificial barriers to entry for 
competing middleware applications and operating systems (including 
those written by individuals, not-for-profits, and for-profit 
companies not currently covered by Section III.D).
    Thank you for your time.
    James Cowie
    Deering, New Hampshire



MTC-00015334

From: Anthony, Jude J (N-SAIC)
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern: This message is my comment to the United 
States v. Microsoft case, which the court is required to consider 
under the Tunney Act. I find the Propsed Final Judgement (henceforth 
the judgement) in the United States v. Microsoft case to be 
unacceptable. I believe the judgement is too narrow, as it addresses 
only particular versions of Microsoft's operating systems. I further 
find that the judgement does not include any means of enforcement.
    While I find many other provisions of the judegment to be 
unsatisfactory, I wish to specifically protest Section III.A.2, , 
which allow Microsoft to retaliate against OEMs that ship PCs with 
an operating system other than Microsoft's, and Section III.B, which 
allows Microsoft to discount products to OEMs based on their volume 
sales of other products. I find Section III.A.2 to be anticompetive, 
and Section III.B monopolistic. Both these provisions are offensive 
when Microsoft's past behavior, and the finding of fact that 
Microsoft is a monopoly, are taken into account.
    Thank You,
    Jude Anthony



MTC-00015335

From: Fader
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I am writing in regards to the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I am a recently 
graduated computer programmer, working in Beckley, WV.
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement truly addresses the 
anticompetitive actions that Microsoft has taken. Speaking for 
myself, at the moment, I know better than to even try to write a 
new, unique piece of software. If I write a program that competes 
with a Microsoft product, they will drive me out of business by 
integrating their product into their operating system, something I 
cannot do without access to their source code. If I write a program 
that adds new functionality, they will quickly write a knockoff 
version of my product and again integrate it with their operating 
system. This is not mere paranoia, and this behavior has not stopped 
since the trial. Ask Kodak, who invested a great deal of time and 
money into creating digital camera software to work with Windows. 
They worked closely with Microsoft, and were quite happy--until 
Windows XP came out, and Microsoft had included a product that 
mirrored what Kodak had written integrated with the operating 
system. This is just one example out of many. This trial has 
implications far beyond Microsoft and Netscape. I know many 
developers who feel the same way that I do. We are afraid to 
innovate, because our hard work will be stolen or driven into the 
ground.
    Thank you, and I hope you will do the right thing and reexamine 
this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald McCollam II
    108 Ball Street
    Beckley, WV 25801



MTC-00015336

From: Barry A. Warsaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement with the US Department of 
Justice is a bad settlement, and would hurt consumers and the 
software industry. It would reduce the amount of choice that 
consumers have and actually increase and extend the monopoly held by 
Microsoft. As one example of the problems, the Proposed Final 
Judgement (PFJ) does not prohibit discriminatory practices in 
Microsoft licenses. Microsoft's End User License Agreement (EULA) 
prohibits uses of add-on software and services on competing, 
Microsoft-compatible operating systems. Such systems (e.g. Macintosh 
and Linux) are technically able to operate in a compatibilty mode 
that allows software such as Microsoft Office, to run on non-
Microsoft operating systems, however the standard license agreements 
on Office prohibit this. This is only one of the scores of problems 
with the PFJ. I urge you to reject the PFJ and to re-negotiate 
settlement terms that actually address the known monopolistic 
practices of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Barry A. Warsaw
    Software Developer
    403 Belton Road
    Silver Spring, MD 20901
    301.681.0289



MTC-00015337

From: Nathan Lenz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I ask you to please not accept the current Microsoft settlement. 
In its current state, it does nothing to keep Microsoft from keeping 
its monopoly.
    The only way to create fair competition is to force Microsoft to 
open their file formats, protocols and API's. This would not force 
them to open up their source code. It would allow others to write 
competing software that fully integrates with Microsoft products.
    Thank you,
    Nathan Lenz



MTC-00015338

From: Jim Gruen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice,
    As a student of computer science with 15 years of experience in 
the computing field, I felt that I should notify you of my concern 
with the proposed government settlement with the Microsoft 
Corporation. As highlighted by Dan Kegel's comments (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html), the proposed settlement will 
achieve little to restore a healthy and competitive environment in 
the computing field. Microsoft is not bad because it is a large 
corporation, but rather because of the startling effects, both 
economic and social, of its anticompetitive measures. Microsoft 
Corporation, as proven in the antitrust trial, has taken extreme 
steps to squelch any competition. This in turn has extended a more 
fearful consequence: Microsoft's brute dominance over the computing 
field has taken away much of that field's glamour, deterring many 
intelligent people from pursuing the study of computing. This indeed 
has resulted in the stifling of the computing technology of our 
country. If much stronger action is not taken against the Microsoft 
Corporation, there can be little hope for our country's 
technological environment.
    Jim Gruen
    Computer Science major, Georgia Institute of Technology
    Peer Leader, Howell Residence Hall



MTC-00015339

From: Pete Guhl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is an incredibly HORRIBLE deal. I have been in 
the IT/IS field for several years and am, frankly, perplexed that 
Microsoft might be able to get away with this unlike the Mafia. They 
must be stopped. Don't let Microsoft keep it's monopoly on PC's!!!
    Pete Guhl, MCSE



MTC-00015340

From: Hill-Popper,Carl R.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides

[[Page 26078]]

adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition. Imagine the damage to 
the United States if Microsoft were to fail, as Enron failed. The 
risks of a monopoly are greater than merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time,
    Carl Hill-Popper



MTC-00015341

From: Borgerding, Zachary
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As an everyday computer user, I feel that the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is not enough. The settlement will continue to allow 
Microsoft to develop a platform and business model prohibits the 
existence of competition. Without competition, computer hardware and 
software would simply fail to improve and continue to be insecure 
and unstable.
    Microsoft, despite having 90% of the computer operating system 
market continues to fail to innovate and significantly improve their 
priducts. By allowing Microsoft to continue to have a closed source 
platform (Windows), Microsoft can continue this trend, ultimately 
slowing the improvement of computer software. Microsft's control 
over the computer software market has grown much too powerful. 
Competition stands no chance... THIS IS A MONOPOLY. Microsoft is 
breaking the law, and their profits are a result of their illegally 
anti-competitive business model. The proposed settlement needs to be 
improved and changed, or else Microsoft's illegal actions will 
continue. Count me in on the growing list of individuals whom are 
not content with the proposed settlement decision.
    Thank you,
    Zach Borgerding



MTC-00015342

From: Colin Cannell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I'd just like to add my comments to the proposed 
settlement. As a longtime Macintosh system administrator, I have 
firsthand experience with the frustration of trying to get my 
systems to interlock with Microsoft software. Through the use of 
proprietary formats and secret APIs, Microsoft has successfully 
prevented Macintosh users from reading its audio and video formats, 
opening and editing its document formats, accessing Windows-based 
network storage, and generally getting anything done_without_the use 
of software expensively supplied and infrequently updated by 
Microsoft itself. Based on my work in the field, I concur 
wholeheartedly with those who argue that the proposed settlement 
contains artificial restrictions that will effectively castrate it. 
I would urge you to at the very least reconsider your definitions of 
``Windows'' and ``API'' to make them useful and to require Microsoft 
to publish the format of its MS Office products for all current and 
future versions of the program.
    Regards,
    Colin Cannell



MTC-00015343

From: Michael P McGIll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement with Microsoft is flawed. Please 
see Dan Kegel's comments (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
    Michael P McGill
    Director, Software Development
    HealthASPex, Inc.
    Phone: 301-657-8003
    Cell: 301-814-2823



MTC-00015344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:56am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Breaking up Microsoft won't do anything. They are a computer 
company. They are distributed by nature.
    Breaking up Microsoft will only force upper management to 
communicate. Do you research. MS wanted Dos... they had MS Word... 
MS Word 5.5 for Dos has a lovely little line of code in it that 
asks, ``Am I running on Microsoft Dos?''
    If the answer is no, it fails. If one modifies that ONE line of 
code to ignore the results of that question, the product works fine. 
How many end-users does that effect? ALL OF THEM! How many end-users 
know how to even look for that line? Less than 1 percent. Just one 
example. You want a fast way to out Microsoft's most heinous 
business habits? Look at the DOJ's history and how many times they 
have bought their freedom.



MTC-00015345

From: David Greenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad.
    David Greenberg



MTC-00015346

From: richard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed remedy and settlement in this case is much too 
limited. Microsoft is a very REAL danger to computer competition 
with respect to Operating Systems and programs. Hit them hard; make 
a strong statement to desist all such practices.



MTC-00015347

From: Bryce
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed Mictosoft settlement. I believe 
that a company who has shown so much disregard for consumers and 
competitive business will need a much stricter punishment. Microsoft 
has shown that they will continue to abuse their monopoly if it 
exist. A perfect example is windows XP with all its new features. 
Each new feature of XP drives to put small companies out of 
business. Look at the media player, cd recording software, internet 
browser (still). The list goes on. I do support making the API for 
windows open, and making the MS Office file formats available to the 
public. I do mean public not for license to competing companies. If 
i wanted to spend a few nights and write software to read a basic MS 
Word file i want to be able to do that with out being incorporated, 
every other popular text format is available for this kind of use.
    Bryce Hauptman
    1316 Wolf Court
    East Lansing, MI 48823



MTC-00015348

From: Jeremy Petersen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea!
    Jeremy Petersen
    Manager, Web Application Engineering
    TeachStream
    800.572.1153 #272



MTC-00015349

From: Chris Baxter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I feel this settlement is extremely favorable to 
Microsoft and guarantees their continued status as a monopoly. From 
what I've read, this settlement does nothing to encourage Microsoft 
to release their proprietary file formats to other developers. 
Because of Microsoft's market position, their software and data file 
formats are the de facto standard of data storage and transmission 
and until they are forced to release the formats of their Office 
product line to third party competitiors they will remain a 
monopoly. Thank you.
    Chris Baxter
    8320 US 23
    Risingsun, OH
    43457



MTC-00015350

From: Josh Steinhurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26079]]

    I do not feel the proposed settlement is either a: 1) a fair 
punishment for past misdeeds; or 2) an adequate safeguard against 
future problems. There are other poeple who will state this all much 
more clearly then I can. However, as a computer science graduate 
student who has studied the technical issues at stake I can assure 
you that an unfettered Microsoft is a danger not only to other ISVs 
and HSVs but to the nation and world as a whole. For example, the 
ever increasing number of exploits and virii which infect win32 
machines is proof that when one platform rules it all there can be 
no safety.
    From a technical standpoint I have seen both in my academic 
research and my journeys into corporte america just how Microsoft 
has been stifling innovation, not fostoring it as they claim. Sadly 
the proposed settlement requires them to do nothing of substance. I 
am not a lawyer and even I can see the loopholes they willl slide 
through. The other problem is that the settlement concenrates on the 
wrong things. None of the requirements will actully punish anti-
competative behavior. Furethermore the 3 person team resonsible for 
investigating claims of misdeeds is not setup in way that gives me 
any confidance in their autonomy or strength. Only one of the three 
will be there without Microsoft's approval. Why does the DOJ refuse 
to stay involved in the matter like it did for IBM? It is my 
judgement that the proposed settlement is nothing but a sell-out. I 
urge you to do your job, not Microsoft's and protect the country and 
the world from a proven law breaker.
    Josh Steinhurst
    Graduate Student
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    CB# 3175; Sitterson Hall
    Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3175b



MTC-00015351

From: TJ
To: Microsoft ATR,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: The Proposed Microsoft Settlement is a Bad Idea.
    Why bother having laws if you're only going to enforce them 
selectively?
    Travis Eckman
    13 Linden Ave.
    Jamestown, NY 14701



MTC-00015352

From: Theodore A. Jump
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement with Microsoft is insufficient, both 
in punitive measures and in adding to the legal history of what 
actions are acceptable by business in general, and will not in 
reality change any practices of Microsofts in any valuable way. 
Sinerely, -Thedore A. Jump
    Professional Software Engineer



MTC-00015353

From: Ron Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement is a bad idea for the 
following reasons:
    1. It does not restrict Microsoft from continuing to use 
monopolistic business practices.
    2. It does nothing to foster true competition with Windows.
    3. It does not restrict or punish Microsoft from ``bundling'' 
software, like Internet Explorer, which hurts possible competitors.
    4. ``Punishing'' Microsoft by making it provide hardware and 
software to schools is providing it with a future customer base who 
will then be used to its monopolistic practices and consider them 
normal.
    Thank you,
    Ron Miller



MTC-00015354

From: Patrick Nichols
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. As a developer familar with both Microsoft and Linux in 
my work, I am certain that this settlement will result in a 
continuation of Microsoft's monopoly status and ultimately result in 
the loss of America's standing as the leader in world technology.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Nichols
    1245 Westover Ave Norfolk VA 23507



MTC-00015355

From: Judd Rogers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    The settlement negotiated with the Department of Justice is 
inadequate to the task. Please abandon it. The alternative proposal 
put forth by the 9 states seems much better but is still not enough. 
Judge Jackson's original proposal seems best. Section J2 of 
negotiated settlement is particularly troubling. It allows Microsoft 
to decide if any competitor is a legitimate and viable business. 
What about the SAMBA project? It seems likely Microsoft would not 
regard a non-profit as a viable business. H1 seems to regard all 
middle-ware as products with specific user interfaces. COM would not 
be such a middle-ware product. This would seem to permit Microsoft 
to disable any replacement for their COM product.
    Yours,
    Judd Rogers



MTC-00015356

From: Blake Ragsdell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Blake Ragsdell



MTC-00015357

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. They 
broke the law. They deserve to be punished. The computer market 
would be much more dynamic without the monolithic presence of 
Microsoft in its current unfettered form.
    thanks
    dale
    Dale HoustonMissile Toe
    Cleveland Clinic Foundation Jan. 26 @ The Lime Spider
    Department of Biostatistics w/King Dapper Combo



MTC-00015358

From: Ty Brewer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a computer professional I am quite upset at the proposed 
Microsoft settlement because it fails to adequately protect the 
consumers from future Microsoft behavior, nor does it punish 
Microsoft for their illegal behavior. I am not advocating punishment 
for the sake of punishment, but as a means of creating more 
competition in this most vital industry.
    Microsoft is without peer in operating systems, consumer 
applications and back-office server applications. Sadly, we are all 
too often forced to adopt an ``all or none'' approach when making 
software decisions because we fear the brute force Microsoft brings 
to bear on future competitors. It is far safer for us to pick 
Microsoft products than those from a competitor because Microsoft 
has clearly shown a willingness and ability to destroy competitors.
    Our company picked the Netscape browser as our corporate 
standard, yet two years later had to reverse ourselves. This 
decision was not based on the superiority of Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer, but on the reality that the Netscape browser was more and 
more frequently being forced off the desktop of

[[Page 26080]]

new PCs. This created an additional burden on us to provide the 
browser that formerly had been installed by default on every new 
computer. Microsoft, in effect, made that decision for us.
    I urge the US government to take action against Microsoft to 
restore the possibility of competition. If this is not done now, it 
will most certainly be necessary in the future.
    The proposed settlement is bad for everyone except Microsoft.
    Ty Brewer



MTC-00015359

From: rogan hamby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    RE: Objections to Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I am writing to comment on the proposed anti-trust settlement 
with Microsoft. The proposed terms of the settlement fail to 
accomplish the intended task of correcting Microsofts past behavior 
in the future. The proposed settlement uses such narrow definitions 
that they are free to continue their activities with new products 
that internally function differently but have the same market role.
    The two most significant of these items concern middleware and 
APIs. APIs are defined for the settlement as the interface between 
middleware and the Windows operating system but leave out 
application APIs such as those for Internet Explorer and Microsoft 
Office. Because Microsoft bundles OS functionality into these APIs 
they can hide code that they should be releasing by the spirit of 
the settlement (but not terms of) there. This also further gives 
them leverage to bundle and enforce bundling of their products 
together as they did with IE. This is a thin line between legitimate 
leveraging and monopolistic behavior but the courts have already 
determined which it is.
    The final definition of middleware used was much more 
restrictive than that used in the Findings of Fact. There are 
several faults but the most significant of which is that it uses the 
title of code to determine whether or not it falls under the power 
of the settlement, allowing a cosmetic change in the name of code to 
determine whether or not is falls under the settlements terms.
    I know that many others have written far lengthier analysis of 
the situation but I hope that you will take these comments in the 
vein of a concerned citizen that has worked in computer technology 
both for private industry and local government sectors.
    Rogan Hamby
    Charlotte, NC



MTC-00015360

From: Don Silvis
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    Your Honor, As concerned Americans, we urge you to reject the 
proposed final judgment in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case. Microsoft 
should not reap the rewards of its past illegal activities, yet this 
settlement would do just that. Furthermore, there need to be 
provisions that assure us that Microsoft will cease its anti-
competitive behavior. For these reasons, we ask you to throw out the 
proposed settlement which is harmful to consumers everywhere.
    Many thanks,
    Donald Silvis
    2103 N. 7th Str.
    Sheboygan, WI 53081
    Tel. (920) 451 0866



MTC-00015361

From: Bernhard Rosenkraenzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement under the Tunney 
Act
    Being a software developer who has been hurt by Microsoft's 
illegal monopolist practices in the past and present, I do not think 
the proposed Microsoft settlement is acceptable.
    There are many loopholes that will allow Microsoft to go ahead 
just as if nothing had happened:
    Having to open APIs will not do any good unless API is both
--defined in a much wider range, including but not limited to 
functions in all important libraries (not just those needed to boot 
the system), and file formats (most notably the ones used by 
Microsoft Office. Many non-Microsoft applications need to be able to 
import and export Microsoft Office files).
--extended to cover patents. For example, Microsoft is currently 
trying to push ASF as a standard for video files. Since ASF is 
covered by patents, it is impossible to (legally) create or play 
back ASF files on non-Microsoft platforms, such as Linux. It is 
vital that the patents may be used free of charge; if this isn't 
done, Open Source applications (which are mostly volunteer work) 
will be shut out.
    The limitations on OEM deals are not sufficient either. Almost 
all larger OEMs have deals with Microsoft that pay Microsoft a fee 
per shipped computer rather than per shipped computer that is 
actually shipped with Windows, giving OEMs no incentive whatsoever 
to even consider alternatives.
    Furthermore, the rules must be enforced much better. A committee 
without any real power is very likely to get ignored by Microsoft.
    Their previous conduct shows that they never respected any 
restrictions imposed upon them unless strictly enforced.
    I suggest the committee must
--Be obligated to investigate any violation reports from the public
--Make all their findings public so there is some public control 
over them to ensure Microsoft does not just buy them out
--Have enough power to make Microsoft take them seriously, such as 
being able to prevent Microsoft products from being sold as long as 
they are violating terms AND fining them with fees that will 
actually hurt a company as large as Microsoft.
    Thank you for your attention.



MTC-00015362

From: John Whitson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  8:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Good morning.
    I have two comments on the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, and its 
pending settlement.
    The first regards access to the secret inner workings of the 
Microsoft Operating Systems (OSs) and their associated user 
interfaces. As part of the settlement, Microsoft should be required 
to publish documentation for all interfaces between all software 
components, file formats, and communications protocols. For years, 
Microsoft has implemented various secret and incompatible 
interfaces, which prevents development of any competitive products. 
For example, the market leader WordPerfect was quite effectively 
driven from the market by Word for Windows'' better performance 
under Windows 95, because the developers of Word had access to 
complete documentation for the Win9x interfaces, while the 
WordPerfect team were required to make do with the pittance released 
to the general public by Microsoft. Internet Explorer was able to 
push out the market leader Netscape by similar tactics.
    Requiring Microsoft to publish all of their interfaces would 
level the playing ground, and might well eliminate the desire to 
break up the software giant. Access to the interfaces would allow 
competitors to write better code, and would benefit end users 
greatly, as more and better software would become much easier to 
develop for each OS.
    Finally, for my own field, network security, the boon would be 
great indeed. Microsoft recently announced that they are finally 
going to start paying some attention to security, but it's too 
little, too late. Access to Microsoft's interfaces would allow much 
more thorough probing for security weaknesses and would provide 
better opportunity for rapid identification and correction of 
problems.
    The second comment is this: Why in the world didn't anyone from 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) notice Microsoft's greatest concern 
in the whole Internet Explorer fiasco? Microsoft's spokesman 
repeatedly said in interviews ``you can not tell us what makes up an 
operating system.'' In fact, any first-year computer science student 
can tell you what makes up an operating system. An OS is the 
interface between applications and hardware. It handles the input 
and output of various devices. That is all. Internet Explorer is not 
part of the Operating System. It's an application, like Word, Excel, 
or my new video game.
    This brings me to the crux of Microsoft's fears: Windows is not 
an operating system, either. Windows is a Graphical User Interface 
(GUI) laid over an Operating System. Microsoft's desperate 
prevarication over the ``definition of an operating system'' came 
because if anyone had made a cogent argument that the GUI and the OS 
are separate, Microsoft could have been required in a settlement to 
separate the GUI and the OS. It is quite conceivable that Microsoft 
could sell the OS (which Microsoft mis-labels the Kernel) from the 
GUI, which would permit competitors to sell GUIs that would be 100% 
compatible with all existing software. I could be running the 
Windows XP kernel

[[Page 26081]]

with a Norton GUI on my system, if Microsoft hadn't been allowed to 
maintain the fiction that somehow the GUI was an integral part of 
the OS.
    In my perfect world the Microsoft GUI and Microsoft OS would be 
separated. This isn't likely to happen at this late stage in the 
game, but I would like someone at DOJ to keep it in mind for the 
next time Microsoft crosses the line.
    Thank you,
    John Whitson
    Network Security Consultant
    VeriSign Consulting
    Boston
    617-308-0325



MTC-00015363

From: Gary Honeycutt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am sorry that I do not have time to comment further, but there 
will be no true justice regarding this case without a breakup of 
Microsoft. What has been proposed is tantamount to a slap on the 
wrist for one of the most domineering, anticompetitive monopolies 
that has ever existed. Please do not give in to corporate pressure. 
Even while you contemplate this proposed settlement Microsoft 
continues their domineering ``bully'' tactics on a market without 
competition. I speak from experience as both a computer network 
administrator and as a builder of new computer systems.



MTC-00015364

From: Stephen Goguen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    It is in my opinion as a software professional, that the 
proposed settlement does not do enough to promote the advancement of 
technology through fair competition and commodity markets. Many of 
my grievances can be noted on Dan Kegal's website as indicated in 
his essay http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Stephen Goguen
    155 Lafayette Ave. Apt 14B
    Hawthorne, NJ 07506



MTC-00015365

From: Staelin, Carl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed final judgement in the 
Microsoft anti-trust trial. I think it does nothing to punish a 
convicted and stridently unrepentant monopolist, and provides no 
relief to current and future Microsoft competitors. Suppose some 
whiz kid comes up with a new ``killer app'' like Netscape, and 
starts a company to develop and market the application. If the 
company is a success, Microsoft can still use many of its 
monopolistic practices to squash the upstart, such ``integrating'' a 
competing application into the operating system, or adding slightly 
broken APIs for ``security'' reasons which can then be kept secret, 
and so forth.
    Due largely to this scenario, I know that many investors are 
hesitant to fund any company which might compete with Microsoft 
because there is no potential profit. Any success will be stolen/
squashed by Microsoft. In large part due to funding problems, the 
most energetic competitors to Microsoft are often found in the 
OpenSource arena. Unfortunately, the proposed final judgement does 
nothing to aid this vibrant source of competition. In addition, 
Microsoft has recently become aware of this competition, and is now 
starting to add restrictive licensing terms to various products and 
toolkits to try and prevent users and developers from using 
OpenSource and Microsoft products together. Since Microsoft is a 
monopolist, this would effectively squash OpenSource competition 
also. Any final judgement should do much more to open APIs, file 
format specification, and documentation to private individuals as 
well as corporations. It should also prohibit any licensing terms 
restricting a user or developer's right to use or distribute 
Microsoft and non-Microsoft code together. In addition, all 
contractual and licensing terms which effectively remove any 
financial incentive to use competing products should be prohibited, 
such as terms which force OEMs or enterprises to pay licensing fees 
based on the number of computers rather than the number of computers 
running Windows. In addition, I think it may be necessary to find 
more creative solutions to Microsoft's conduct, such as forcing 
Microsoft to license their patents that cover various aspects of 
Windows to all comers for free, so free alternatives to Windows such 
as ``wine'' can flourish. I know that this is taking private 
intellectual property, but it is a mild punishment for felonious 
conduct. I think the court should also reconsider more extreme 
measures, such as dividing the company into multiple competing 
companies, as was done with Standard Oil and Bell Telephone.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Carl Staelin
    The opinions expressed above are strictly my own, and do not 
necessarily agree with my employer's views. I am a US Citizen 
working abroad.
    Senior Research Scientist
    Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
    Technion City
    Haifa, 32000
    ISRAEL
    +972(4)823-1237x221+972(4)822-0407 fax



MTC-00015366

From: Michael Bourgon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, and say that it's a bad idea. Microsoft has continued to 
exert its monopoly, during the trial and afterwards. This is a 
company that repeatedly had people lie under oath, threaten 
competitors, and flat-out abuse its monopoly.
    I would love it if the settlement would curb Microsoft's 
behavior, but I doubt that would be the case. Please reconsider the 
settlement, and create one that will actually encourage competition 
and ensure that Microsoft's past practices don't happen again. I'm a 
fan of the free market, but I also like to see competition in the 
marketplace. Microsoft has repeatedly tried to stomp out 
competition. Please reconsider the settlement. Thank you.



MTC-00015367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It lets 
Microsoft off the hook for past crimes and allows them to continue 
to exert a stranglehold on the software industry.



MTC-00015368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing in regard to the settlement proposal for Microsoft. 
I believe that the settlement does not go far enough to allow Open 
Source Operating Systems to fairly compete. There are 2 areas that 
concern me greatly:
    1. File formats under this settlement are still not disclosed. 
This prevents Open Source applications and operating systems from 
being compatible. Microsoft will still have a stranglehold on the 
application software market.
    2. The APIs are still not opened up far enough to allow other 
operating systems to either use products like Microsoft Office 
natively, or to develop competing, compatible products. Please 
reconsider the scope of the proposed settlement, and provide 
remedies for these problems.
    Thank you,
    Daron D. Fraley
    IT Manager
    DCM Indiana, Inc.
    Plainfield, IN 46168
    317-839-7347



MTC-00015369

From: Wohlers, John
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  8:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I really don't think the government should settle for anything 
less than the breakup of Microsoft. They hold to great a market 
share to allow any real competition at least in the home market. I 
believe Linux is managing to squeeze a little into the business 
market, but as soon as Microsoft turns its attention towards Linux 
fully they will completely crush it due to their stranglehold on the 
consumers.
    As a personal consumer, I find it atrocious that I have to spend 
almost $90 every time I replace my pc in order to have a legal copy 
of Microsoft operating system. I would glady switch to something 
else, but many of the programs I use for home/work do not run on 
anything but MS windows. Please do

[[Page 26082]]

something about this bullying megacorp asap!
    John Wohlers
    Library Technology Assistant
    Waubonsee Community College
    Rt 47 @ Waubonsee Drive
    Sugar Grove IL, 60554



MTC-00015370

From: Eric Frey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    This letter is to indicate my strong opposition to the currently 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. I have made my 
living as a professional in the software industry since 1965, and 
the currently proposed settlement will not, in my opinion, restore 
free competition to the marketplace, nor will it prevent Microsoft's 
continued abuse of monopoly power.
    Eric D. Frey
    2205 W. Fremont Rd.
    P.O. Box 106339
    Jackson, WY 83002



MTC-00015371

From: crushing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. I stand as a 
cosigner of Dan Kegel's comments.



MTC-00015372

From: g botkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:01am
Subject: The proposed settlement is bad for America.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Microsoft from merging with a media 
giant such as ABC.
    It is my opinion that Microsoft should be broken up.



MTC-00015373

From: Richard Copeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02  9:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does 
not effectively curtail Microsoft's anti-competitive practices and 
does not penalize Microsoft in any substantive way for their 
arrogant and unremorseful trampling of anti-trust law.
    Thank you,
    Richard D. Copeland, Jr.
    1803 Riverview Drive
    Marietta, GA 30067



MTC-00015374

From: Tony Zahn
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement to the Microsoft case, while being aimed 
in the right direction, is too loose and will allow Microsoft to 
proceed without changing their actions very much at all. The company 
has proven time and again that they have no qualms with using every 
tactic available to them to put competitors out of business, thus 
furthering their monopoly and preventing the innovations that new 
companies would bring.



MTC-00015375

From: Justin Hall
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to add my comments about the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    It doesn't seem to me that the proposed remedy does anything 
about Microsoft taking retaliatory action against OEM's--on the 
contrary, it seems that it encourages it. In Section III.A.2, 
Microsoft is allowed to retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system. Section III.B. requires Microsoft to 
license Windows on uniform terms and at published prices to some of 
the larger OEM's but doesn't do anything to prevent them from taking 
retaliatory measures against smaller ones. The retaliatory measures 
are what kept OEM's from being able to place other programs along 
with Microsoft's on their machines in the first place, and if 
Microsoft is permitted to continue in these practices, they are 
still leveraging their monopoly power in a destructive way.
    Please reconsider the Proposed Final Judgement. It doesn't do 
everything that it could and leaves the potential for harm a 
possibility.
    Regards,
    Justin Hall
    Systems/Network Administrator
    Sant Corporation--The Proposal Experts
    Office: 513.631.1155 x 250
    Mobile: 513.252.6011



MTC-00015376

From: Ward Gerlach
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement IS NOT a good one, and is NOT in the 
interests of the United States.
    Ward Gerlach



MTC-00015379

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.
    Tom Lageson
    1740 North Pascal Street
    Falcon Heights, MN 55113
    651-647-9057



MTC-00015380

From: Chris Bailey-Kellogg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Greetings:
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. This is clearly a bad settlement from the customer's 
point of view, as it does practically nothing to remedy the anti-
competitive behavior that Microsoft has been found to practice (and, 
in a show of utter contempt, is continuing to practice even now with 
``features'' in XP and so forth). There are already available some 
well-written analyses of the defects in the settlement (e.g. see 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/), from a wide variety of viewpoints. I 
will not repeat them here, but instead request that you add my voice 
to this crowd of consumers asking our government to stand up for us 
rather than for monopolistic practices.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Bailey-Kellogg
    Assistant Professor, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue 
University
    West Lafayette, IN



MTC-00015381

From: Chad Rytting
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In regards to the Microsoft settlement, I feel I must disagree 
with this settlement altogether. I don't think that anything less 
than a break-up of this company will alleviate the problems that it 
has created, and begin to restore faith in the market that it can 
indeed be a competitive arena. In my experience, and through my 
readings, when Microsoft decides they want to dominate an area, they 
use business practices that are by definition unfair by setting the 
prices of their products so low that other companies who cannot rely 
on sales of other products to make up differences simply can't 
compete. When this same thing happened with many similar companies, 
they went through break-ups (Standard Oil, AT&T, etc.). I would 
politely ask that you consider this solution for Microsoft, or at 
least that you would make them release the code of their systems to 
other companies to bid on.
    Microsoft uses unfair tactics in their programming, as well. It 
would seem to me that you would find it of utmost interest if an oil 
company were to sell gasoline of an extremely low grade to certain 
stores, while selling the most premium grade gasoline to their own 
stores. This is how Microsoft programs their system. They document 
certain things about it, but when it comes to fine tuning an 
application, they don't give enough information on the internals of 
the OS to allow those who would write an application to make it run 
efficiently. This way, when Microsoft decides to attempt to dominate 
this market, they can write a sleeker, faster, finer tuned 
application and claim to be the better company for it. When all 
along, this was their plan.
    In summary, I would ask that you consider dividing Microsoft or 
some other means of making the company compete on a more fair level. 
If you do not place these type of sanctions on Microsoft, they will 
continue (as they currently are) their unfair business practices. 
During this whole case, Microsoft has released numerous new 
operating

[[Page 26083]]

systems, office products, a gaming console, and more. Their latest 
version of windows (XP) is just another area where Microsoft is 
using its muscle to overturn more markets (CD writing built into the 
OS, MS Messenger installed by default, reminds you constantly to 
sign up for their ``passport'' program on the web which competes 
with other programs that do similar things on the Internet).
    Thank you for your time,
    Chad Rytting



MTC-00015382

From: Eric J. Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does nothing to stifle microsoft's 
monopoly powers. The proposed settlement is unacceptable.



MTC-00015383

From: Jason M Dunn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not agree with the MicroSoft (hereafter MS) settlement as 
it stands. I have two changes that should be added.
    1.) MS must open their file formats. Competitors must have 
access to what have become the de facto data storage formats for 
word processing, spreadsheets, and databases. In the current 
business environment, the MS file formats are ubiquitous, and 
therefore new businesses and businesses buying new software are 
forced to use MS software to be able to have meaningful, efficient 
communication with vendors, contractors, suppliers, etc.
    2.) The business strategy known as ``embrace and extend''--
whereby MS uses a standardized, ``open'' file format and then slowly 
uses its market share to leverage a change to a similar but 
incompatible, proprietary file format--must be stopped.
    J.M. Dunn



MTC-00015384

From: Paul Lussier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing, under provision of the Tunney Act, to voice my 
objection to the currently Proposed Final Judgement against 
Microsoft. Beccause of the many inherent flaws in the current PFJ, 
this settlement is tantamount to allowing this company (Microsoft) 
walk away from a finding of fact that they are in violation of the 
Sherman Antitrust Act with less than the figurative ``slap on the 
wrist''.
    The current settlement makes absolutely no provision for 
enforcement or technical review. It leaves enforcement upto the 
legel system, which is quite ill-prepared to deal with such 
technical situations. Additionally, though the PFJ requires 
increased disclosure of technical information, there is no provision 
for advance notice of these technical requirements. As a result, 
things like API documentation can be released too late to help an 
ISV. Also, because of the narrow definitions of ``Middleware'' and 
``API'', Section IIID's requirement to release this information 
about Windows interfaces excludes many important interfaces required 
for seamless integration of ISV products into the Windows Operating 
Environment. Another major problem is that there is nothing in the 
PFJ which requires documentation of file formats. This one area is 
one in which Microsoft has used to their advantage time and again to 
lock out the competition. Each version of Microsoft Word (not to 
mention every other Microsoft Office Application) has has a 
different file format than the previous versions, all incompatible 
with each other. This has the effect of forcing individuals and 
companies to upgrade a major part of their infrastructure just so 
they read documents sent to them. It becomes a vicious circle which 
repeats itself each time there is a new release of MS Office.
    These are but only a few of the flaws with the current 
settlement proposal. There are many, many more (see http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html) In conclusion, I request that 
this Proposal for Final Judgement be rejected and another, better 
proposal be drafted with the aid of technically proficient members 
from the software industry.
    Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Lussier
    226 Page Street,
    Lunenburg, MA, 01462



MTC-00015385

From: David F. Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a U.S citizen I am writing under the provisions of the Tunney 
Act to register my opinion on the proposed settlement between 
Microsoft and the US Department of Justice. I do not believe that 
the proposed settlement is an effective remedy for Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. It does not address the harm done to 
competitors or consumers and allows Microsoft to benefit from its 
anti-competitive behavior.
    Sincerely,
    David F. Williams
    1824 W Easton Ct
    Tulsa, OK 74127



MTC-00015386

From: Matt Homan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am submitting my personal comment regarding the Microsoft 
settlement. As a common computer user and as a common American 
citizen my strongest feeling regarding the settlement is pointed at 
the monopoly factor. If a competitive market can't be up held here 
in the United States, then where? If this is what we stand for then 
why, in a most visible display, are we strangling our growth in 
technologies? It is in these points that we fail, fall behind, and 
shoot ourselves in the foot? Competition creates better product and 
technology. Microsoft's product line is an example of how a none 
competitive arena create mediocrity. Stricter guidelines and 
punishment should be assessed to reflect the business it is 
changing. Not enough is being done to open the arena of a 
competitive market.
    God Bless America.



MTC-00015387

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the proposed settlement fails to remedy past 
abuses of Microsoft's monopoly power, fails to prevent future 
abuses, and fails to produce a more free market. Stronger measures 
are required to accomplish these goals.
    Mark Maxwell
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00015388

From: Michael J. Sherman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I have reviewed the proposed settlement, and I find it 
completely unacceptable.
    As a professional computer scientist, I work with software every 
day. I have seen first-hand the damage Microsoft has had on 
computing technology. They may say that all they want is the 
``freedom to innovate'', but what they really mean is the ``freedom 
to innovate new ways to making money''.
    Computing technology would be leaps ahead right now if it 
weren't for the illegal practices of Microsoft. Any settlement MUST 
allow true competition, where Microsoft can be relegated to a 40% 
market share or so. Dependence on Microsoft is bad for many reasons. 
One, their security is fundamentally flawed in their OS (I have done 
extensive research). Two, our business economy would crash if 
Microsoft were to go out of business (over-dependence). Three, their 
products are just plain inferior and put all software in a bad light 
(users ``expect'' programs to crash now!). Please, remedy the 
situation in a sane manner. Of all the times the government should 
do something FOR THE PEOPLE, this is it. Do not give in to the 
Microsoft lobby and believe their lies!
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Sherman
    Computer Scientist
    Sterling, VA



MTC-00015389

From: Brad Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is: Brad Smith 1031 W Second Ave Columbus, OH
    For reasons extensive and significant, I think the settlement is 
a poor idea. Chiefly, I strongly believe that MS has been the 
principle force behind stunting of innovation and competition for 
the past 15+ years. Not only does the current settlement not 
recognize that, but places them in a position to extend this reign.
    Please side against the settlement.
    Brad Smith

[[Page 26084]]



MTC-00015390

From: Philip E. Jurgenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    The proposed judgment against Microsoft totally fails to address 
their known anti-competitive behavior, and actually helps them 
extend their monopoly. It ignores the issue of Microsoft's ever-
changing (undocumented) file formats, which force end users into an 
eternal upgrade cycle. This upgrade cycle demonstrably harms 
consumers! Since Microsoft has been found to have used their 
monopoly in personal computer operating systems in an abusive manner 
in a court of law, it would seem that some actual punitive action 
should be taken. The proposed judgment allows so many loopholes that 
there is no actual punishment involved! Please, please reconsider 
your actions!
    Sincerely,
    Philip E. Jurgenson



MTC-00015391

From: Scott Starkey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Respectfully, I am against the proposed Microsoft settlement, 
and have several problems with it. My foremost reason is, Microsoft 
has proven itself time and time again to be an abusive monopoly, 
doing almost anything to stifle competition and promote their own 
products. I have a problem with the fact that Microsoft enters into 
liscencing agreements with all of the big computer makers (Compaq, 
Dell, Gateway) so that the maker cannot sell a computer without also 
selling a copy of Windows. If I want RedHat Linux on a computer from 
Dell, they would be forced to also sell me a copy of Windows, even 
if I don't want it. Because of their strict license, I would not be 
able to resell this unused copy of Windows. Most of the viruses that 
you hear about on the news today are as a direct result of security 
flaws from Microsoft products. Microsoft has consistently tried to 
hide security information from its users until it can fix its 
mistakes, but the cover-up almost never works. Hackers will find the 
security flaws first, and exploit them before the public knows about 
them. Unfortunately, Microsoft treats security flaws like PR 
problems. This is dangerous when the general public has little 
choice but to buy a Microsoft product, so the security flaws are 
just as ubiquitous. Microsoft often uses its propaganda machine to 
defame other operating systems. Their leadership has spoken freely 
against Linux and free software, calling it ``viral software'' and 
telling half-truths against it. Microsoft staff members have been 
found to doctor on-line polls to improve Microsoft's image. 
Microsoft manufactures ``grass-roots campaigns'' to support their 
image. I can imagine the Microsoft PR-machine is flooding you right 
now with ``The settlement is okay.'' messages. I write you this 
message with the sincere hope that my letter will cancel out one of 
those bogus messages.
    Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to state my opinion.
    Scott Starkey
    Computer Support
    Purdue University



MTC-00015392

From: Conrad W. Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  1:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad and inadequate in that it will 
not prevent Certain Practices Toward End Users and Toward 
Independent Software Vendors which will be greatly harmful to end 
users, ISVs and competition in general. I refer specifically to the 
capability to restrain Microsoft's typical business practices, which 
if not impeded, will allow the .net and Passport initiatives to 
become a Microsoft monopoly in the area of electronic commerce and 
customer identification and authentication.



MTC-00015393

From: Matt Hucke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the self-serving ``settlement'' proposed by Microsoft. 
It is absurd to think that they can buy their way out of having to 
take responsibility for their unethical and illegal actions.



MTC-00015394

From: Joe Vandevander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please, Don't settle with these jokers. They're making a mockery 
of the justice system and making fools of the government. Anyone 
with eyes can see what they've been doing for years is plainly 
wrong--punish them for it. Don't let political expediency get in the 
way of what is better for the country in the long haul.
    Joe Vandevander
    1103-2c Crab Orchard St.
    Raleigh, NC 27606



MTC-00015395

From: Don Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US citizen I find the proposed govenment settlementwith 
Microsoft a complete shame. Microsoft has stifled innovation in the 
computer industry and should be severely punished and restricted 
from ever doing so again. Competitors that have been damaged by 
Microsoft's anticompetitive behaviour should be justly compensated 
by Microsoft.
    Do the right thing.
    Don Evans
    North Andover, MA



MTC-00015396

From: Steve Linberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to state my concerns about the proposed settlement, 
which I believe are insufficient to curb Microsoft's long history of 
anticompetitive practice and behavior. The findings of fact 
confirmed Microsoft's monopoly status--findings of extraordinary 
gravity whose remedial consequences should carry equal weight. The 
proposed settlment allows far too many loopholes and ways for 
Microsoft to avoid its full impact, and continue to create its own 
self-serving definitions for how it should apply (for example, 
deciding for itself which Windows APIs to open rather than being 
compelled to open them all). It also allows Microsoft to continue 
many anticompetitive practices it has employed for years (like 
retaliating against OEMs shipping a PC with an OS other than 
Windows); it also appears to lack any real teeth for enforcement, 
providing only for investigative capacity of a ``Technical 
Committee'', but leaving all enforcement to the legal system, where 
Microsoft has the money and time to stonewall, delay, and avoid 
justice, which they have already shown their propensity for. If 
Microsoft in its present 95% market share collapsed like Enron, 
imagine the catastrophic damage to the US and world economies. 
Microsoft's anticompetitive practices and monooplistic behavior have 
illegally crushed competition and stifled innovation, the lifeblood 
of the American economy. Small businesses (and even large ones) must 
be given a chance to compete on a level playing field. Microsoft 
must be stripped of the advantages it gained through its 
monopolistic practices, and quickly. I believe that the proposed 
settlement does not go nearly far enough to ensure that this will 
happen.
    Steve Linberg
    Programmer and owner
    Silicon Goblin Technologies
    Steve Linberg, Chief Goblin
    Be kind. Remember, everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.



MTC-00015397

From: Chuck Nixon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial. Microsoft's anti-
competitive practices are counter to the law and spirit of our free-
enterprise system.
    These practices inhibit competition, reduce innovation, and 
thereby decrease employment and productivity in our nation. 
Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding of 
fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future. It is my belief that a very 
strong set of

[[Page 26085]]

strictures must be placed on convicted monopolists to insure that 
they are unable to continue their illegal activities. I do not think 
that the proposed settlement is strong enough to serve this 
function.
    Sincerely,
    Chuck Nixon



MTC-00015398

From: Lalitree Laura Darnielle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft's practices 
have resulted in them flooding the market with inferior, buggy 
products. They have sqeezed out competition, and have cut off the 
air to smaller companies or those with less of a stranglehold on the 
desktop. This has effectively forced consumers to settle for 
Microsoft products. Don't let them get away with it. Don't settle 
for their horrible business practices. Don't settle.
    Lalitree Darnielle
    1212 Scott Avenue
    Ames, IA 50014



MTC-00015399

From: Paul S. Coan
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am concerned that the current proposed settlement agreement in 
the antitrust case against Microsoft is insufficient. The 
``penalties'' to be levied seem quite out of scale with the proved 
misconduct. Also, the proposed settlement does little to prevent the 
same sort of activities from occurring again. In particular there 
seems to be little openness in the code review process, where all 
data is kept secret.
    All in all the settlement seems to indicate that many people 
will have little choice but to buy software only from one source and 
at inflated prices.
    Paul S. Coan
    Assistant Professor of Chemistry
    Ball State University
    Muncie, IN
    Phone: (765) 285-2196



MTC-00015400

From: NWA
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft settlement is simply a bad idea and is 
against the interest of the citizens of this nation and opposed to 
the very core national interests and laws.
    Please do not forget the individuals in making this settlement. 
While big business deserves to be protected from the unlawful 
practices of Microsoft so to do the individual non-profit opensource 
developers of whom this settlement does not protect.
    Please do your part in defense of the United States in upholding 
and enforcing the laws of this nation to provide a fair and just 
free market.



MTC-00015401

From: kelvin katsumi kang kakugawa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    -Kelvin



MTC-00015402

From: Will Wainwright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Please don't settle on this yet!
    Thank you,
    Will Wainwright



MTC-00015403

From: Erik Strom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I agree with the letter bellow from Ralph Nader dated November 
5, 2001 about `RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order'.
    Microsoft continues to destroy any innovation in the computer 
industry. They have used their monopoly power to destroy company 
after company. The current ruling will do nothing to stop or slow 
them down, they have proven this in the past with similar rulings.
    Microsoft needs to be broken up into at least 3 companies.
    Erik Strom
    My view does not refelect the company CMS Inc.
    Ralph Nader
    P.O. Box 19312
    Washington, DC 20036
    James Love
    Consumer Project on Technology
    P.O. Box 19367
    Washington, DC 20036
    November 5, 2001
    Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
    United States District Court for the District of Columbia
    333 Constitution Avenue, NW
    Washington DC 20001
    RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,

Introduction

    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note 
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation 
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage, 
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on 
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and 
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness 
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to 
Microsoft.
    We are disappointed of course that the court has moved away from 
a structural remedy, which we believe would require less dependence 
upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by Microsoft, and 
which would jump start a more competitive market for applications. 
Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make the following 
observations.
    On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses 
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, 
particularly in terms of its OEM licensing practices and on the 
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of 
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where 
the interoperability remedies should be stronger. For example, there 
is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for popular 
office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, where 
Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy intellectual 
property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly operating system 
where it will be needed the most, in terms of new interfaces and 
technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give Microsoft too 
many opportunities to undermine the free software movement. We also 
find the agreement wanting in several other areas. It is astonishing 
that the agreement fails to provide any penalty for Microsoft's past 
misdeeds, creating both the sense that Microsoft is escaping 
punishment because of its extraordinary political and economic 
power, and undermining the value of antitrust penalties as a 
deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately address the 
concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the spirit or the 
letter of previous agreements, offering a weak oversight regime that 
suffers in several specific areas. Indeed, the proposed alternative 
dispute resolution for compliance with the agreement embraces many 
of the worst features of such systems, operating in secrecy, lacking 
independence, and open to undue influence from Microsoft.

OEM Licensing Remedies

    We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these remedies 
include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft middleware, 
changes in the management of visible icons and other issues. These 
remedies would have been more effective if they would have been 
extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of Microsoft's 
monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if they 
permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless, they 
are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to consumers.

Interoperability Remedies

    Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft 
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of 
Microsoft products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office 
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor 
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is 
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft 
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for 
example the disclosures of APIs for Windows and Microsoft middleware 
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used 
for services, and nondiscriminatory licensing of certain 
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products. 
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited 
by Microsoft, and as is indicated by

[[Page 26086]]

the record in this case, Microsoft can and does take advantage of 
any loopholes in contracts to create barriers to competition and 
enhance and extend its monopoly power.

Special Concerns for Free Software Movement

    The provisions in J.1 and J.2. appear to give Microsoft too much 
flexibility in withholding information on security grounds, and to 
provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens on a 
rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More 
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical 
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited 
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and 
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the 
importance of new software development models, including those 
``open source'' or ``free'' software development models which are 
now widely recognized as providing an important safeguard against 
Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the Internet depends.
    The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of 
technical information to the broader public is an important and in 
our view core flaw in the proposed agreement. The agreement should 
require that this information be as freely available as possible, 
with a high burden on Microsoft to justify secrecy. Indeed, there is 
ample evidence that Microsoft is focused on strategies to cripple 
the free software movement, which it publicly considers an important 
competitive threat. This is particularly true for software developed 
under the GNU Public License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the 
most important rival to Microsoft in the server market. Consider, 
for example, comments earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim 
Allchin: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html 
``Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation,'' 
Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT One of Microsoft's 
high-level executives says that freely distributed software code 
such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to 
understand the threat. The result will be the demise of both 
intellectual property rights and the incentive to spend on research 
and development, Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim 
Allchin said this week.
    Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while 
discussing protection of intellectual property rights ``Open source 
is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ``I can't 
imagine something that could be worse than this for the software 
business and the intellectual-property business.'' In a June 1, 2001 
interview with the Chicago Sun Times, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer 
again complained about the GNU/Linux business model, saying ``Linux 
is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense 
to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works,'' 1 
leading to a round of new stories, including for example this 
account in CNET.Com: http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-
micro01.html ``Microsoft CEO takes launch break with the Sun-
Times,'' Chicago Sun Times, June 1, 2001. http://news.cnet.com/news/
0-1003-200-6291224.html ``Why Microsoft is wary of open source: Joe 
Wilcox and Stephen Shankland in CNET.com, June 18, 2001.
    There's more to Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source 
movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the 
software giant in its quest to gain control of a server market 
that's crucial to its long-term goals Recent public statements by 
Microsoft executives have cast Linux and the open-source philosophy 
that underlies it as, at the minimum, bad for competition, and, at 
worst, a ``cancer'' to everything it touches. Behind the war of 
words, analysts say, is evidence that Microsoft is increasingly 
concerned about Linux and its growing popularity. The Unix-like 
operating system ``has clearly emerged as the spoiler that will 
prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant position'' in the 
worldwide server operating-system market, IDC analyst A1 Gillen 
concludes in a forthcoming report.
    . . . While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious 
inroads. . . ]. . In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft 
finds itself competing ``not against another company, but against a 
grassroots movement,'' said Paul Dain, director of application 
development at Emeryville, Calif.- based Wirestone, a technology 
services company.
    . . . Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License 
(GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes 
to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The 
license means that if a company changes the kernel, it must publish 
the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to 
distribute the code externally. Microsoft's open-source attacks come 
at a time when the company has been putting the pricing squeeze on 
customers. In early May, Microsoft revamped software licensing, 
raising upgrades between 33 percent and 107 percent, according to 
Gartner. A large percentage of Microsoft business customers could in 
fact be compelled to upgrade to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a 
heftier purchase price later on.
    The action ``will encourage--`force'' may be a more accurate 
term--customers to upgrade much sooner than they had otherwise 
planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report. ``Once the honeymoon 
period runs out in October 2001, the only way to `upgrade'' from a 
product that is not considered to be current technology is to buy a 
brand-new full license.'''
    This could make open-source Linux's GPL more attractive to some 
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. ``Offering 
this form of `upgrade protection'' may motivate some users to 
seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft technology.'' What is 
surprising is that the US Department of Justice allowed Microsoft to 
place so many provisions in the agreement that can be used to 
undermine the free software movement. Note for example that under 
J.1 and J.2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold 
technical information from third parties on the grounds that 
Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and viability of its 
business,'' while at the same time it is describing the licensing 
system for Linux as a ``cancer'' that threatens the demise of both 
the intellectual property rights system and the future of research 
and development.
    The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies 
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon 
the free sharing of technical information with the general public, 
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of 
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft 
can tightly control access to technical information under a court 
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the 
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will 
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products. Problems with the term and the 
enforcement mechanism
    Another core concern with the proposed final order concerns the 
term of the agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a 
five-to-seven year term is artificially brief, considering that this 
case has already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, 
and the fact that Microsoft's dominance in the client OS market is 
stronger today than it has ever been, and it has yet to face a 
significant competitive threat in the client OS market. An 
artificial end will give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, 
meeting each new problem with an endless round of evasions and 
creative methods of circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the 
agreement. Only if Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms 
with its obligations will it modify its strategy of anticompetitive 
abuses.
    Even within the brief period of the term of the agreement, 
Microsoft has too much room to co-opt the enforcement effort. 
Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the 
courts, is given the right to select one member of the three members 
of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in selecting 
the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to secrecy, 
denying the public any information on Microsoft's compliance with 
the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, working inside 
Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if this committee 
spends its time playing golf with Microsoft executives, or 
investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. Its ability to 
interview Microsoft employees will be extremely limited by the 
provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to insist on having 
its lawyers present. One would be hard pressed to imagine an 
enforcement mechanism that would do less to make Microsoft 
accountable, which is probably why Microsoft has accepted its terms 
of reference. In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, 
IBM was required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues 
raised by its competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with 
IBM to review its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the 
right to revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not 
satisfied with IBM's conduct.

[[Page 26087]]

    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example 
an annual report that could include information on past complaints, 
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be 
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real 
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft. 
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich 
Microsoft would be difficult to fathom, but one might make these 
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds 
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that 
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own 
monopoly. This would give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.

Failure to Address Ill Gotten Gains

    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary. Microsoft has 
profited richly from the maintenance of its monopoly. On September 
30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-term investments of 
$36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the previous quarter--an 
accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per month. It is astounding 
that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no more'' edict from a court, 
after its long and tortured history of evasion of antitrust 
enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of anticompetitive 
practices -practices recognized as illegal by all members of the DC 
Circuit court. The court has a wide range of options that would 
address the most egregious of Microsoft's past misdeeds. For 
example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-up of the 
Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require more 
targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative 
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to 
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers? That economic crimes pay! Please 
consider these and other criticisms of the settlement proposal, and 
avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a Microsoft antitrust 
case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner 
message.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Nader
    James Love



MTC-00015404

From: Bill Soul
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is not a good idea. It is 
important that Microsoft is forced to make the Windows API available 
and standardized. It would premote fair competition which is what 
antitrust laws are supposed to protect.
    William Soul
    A Concerned US Citizen



MTC-00015405

From: Thomas Williamson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that this settlement is a bad idea. It seems to me 
that that this type of remedy falls extremely short for a company 
that is a known multiple offender and in a prior settlement has been 
less than compliant. It is overly broad in it's language thus 
leaving much leeway where by Microsoft could obey the letter of the 
settlement, but blatently defy the spirit of it. I find this 
especially dangerous when the resources of Microsoft are considered, 
and their willingness to skirt the law (as was demonstrated in their 
last settlement). Additionally I find it disturbing that the 
settlement differs in many of its definitons from the finding of 
facts. Overall I find this settlement lacking in its ability to 
protect the intrests of the public. It would be a mistake of the 
most grevious nature for the Justice Department to accept this 
agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Hall Williamson Jr.
    11 South Eutaw St. #1404
    Baltimore, MD 21201



MTC-00015406

From: Jason Freeland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I am of the opinion, that the settlement as written, is 
unacceptable. It does not go far enough to curtail the 
anticompetitive practices that microsoft, engages in. A better 
solution must be found.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Freeland



MTC-00015407

From: Dieter Bohn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Reject it.
    To Whom It May concern
    I oppose the proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Dept. 
of Justice. As it currently stands, the settlement lacks sufficient 
penalties for Microsoft's actions. More importantly, the settlement 
does not provide for any meaningful rectification of the present 
situation. In fact, in my opinion, it serves only to solidify 
Microsoft's dominance of the consumer market and to limit growth, 
innovation, ease of use, progress, and a host of other benefits to 
the industry. I am an average computer user. My learning curve with 
regards to computers has been severely hampered by Microsoft's poor 
software and poor support. This in itself is not a crime. What is a 
crime is that I have been hampered significantly in my efforts to 
find alternatives to the Microsoft OS, broweser, office suite, etc. 
Microsoft has used its monopolistic hold on the OS market to take 
over other markets. It is once again attempting to do this now with 
XP, and is publicly planning to again with .Net. Only a settlement 
that punishes Microsoft for its past actions and seeks to seriously 
rectify the damage that has been done to the market is acceptable. 
As it stands, it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist, nay, a 
pat on the back.
    Please reject the proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Dietrich Bohn
    3916 Grand Ave S #3
    Minneapolis, MN 55409



MTC-00015408

From: Brian Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft corporation is far too 
narrow in scope to be effected. The settlement should be revised.



MTC-00015409

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice:
    I would just like to say that I have read the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state.
    The current settlement is riddled with loopholes that Microsoft 
can exploit and continue practices that prompted the antitrust case 
in the first place. For a technical analysis of the proposed 
settlement please visit the following web site: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html It was not written by me but 
represents my views against the proposed settlement. Do not allow 
Microsoft to hide behind clauses that would protect their API's from 
full disclosure. One example: security. True security relies on keys 
and not the algorithm. Encryption algorithms of today are all 
publicly known. What makes them secure are the secret key 
combinations that are used by the end user. Open source software by 
nature publishes the code/API's used in the software security. Yet 
they are secure because the secret key combinations are what really 
keeps data secure.
    This example merely shows that there is no excuse for some of 
the clauses that prevent Microsoft from distributing all of their 
API's. I would like to bring up the issue of file formats. The 
antitrust case only dealt with the Windows operating system. I would 
like you to consider that the MS Office document format also enjoys 
a form of monopoly status. As a computer consultant I believe that 
Linux is almost capable to replace MS Windows as a desktop operating 
system. The ``almost'' is due to the poor ability to interact with 
other businesses/individuals that use MS Word and other Office 
document formats. There is no application outside of MS Word that 
can

[[Page 26088]]

read/write MS Word documents as good as MS Word does. When one uses 
competing software such as WordPerfect, StarOffice, OpenOffice, 
ClarisWorks, etc. to open and save Word files the document layout 
will always be different from what was used in MS Word. The same is 
true for the other Office products (Excel, Access, PowerPoint). If 
the MS Office file formats were to be completely made public then 
software developers would be able to write software that can 
correctly read and write documents created by people using MS Office 
products. I have been reluctant to replace Windows with Linux on the 
dozen computers currently being used in a Christian private K-12 
school. Although this school has about 120 students, it struggles 
financially. Having to buy Windows and Office licenses for each new 
computer is expensive. I would love to switch to the Linux operating 
system and use StarOffice for word/spreadsheet/presentations 
documents. However, if I switched presently I would be bombarded by 
support calls from people unable to read/write MS Office documents 
correctly. Also, many individuals ask me for recommendations on the 
purchase of computer systems. I cannot presently recommend Linux and 
a Linux based office suite for the same reason.
    Finally, Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime. It has been 
upheld in a Court of Appeals. All the current remedies and even the 
ones I mention above are conduct remedies. Where's the fine? Where's 
the real punishment Microsoft has destroyed companies and put people 
out of work. All the proposed conduct remedies are equivalent to a 
``slap on the wrist''. Has Microsoft hurt consumers? Absolutely. The 
average computer price for a consumer computer system from 1995 to 
today the price has halved. The reason is due to increased demand 
and supply. Computer hardware has become a commodity market with 
many suppliers. However, the price of MS Windows software from 1995 
to today has gone up by around 10%. Most of the computer hardware is 
sold with MS Windows--a monopoly status found in Judge Jackson's 
Findings of Facts. Why hasn't MS Windows dropped in price as with PC 
hardware? The answer is simple--no competition. Consumers are being 
forced to pay a higher price tag for MS Windows because of a lack of 
competition.
    As a voting citizen (Republican) I will not stand by idly and 
see this case end in a mere ``hand slap''. You, the DOJ, is supposed 
to be the public's representative. Every news article I read 
basically agrees with me and many other computer consultants that 
the proposed remedy is a joke.
    Sincerely,
    Marco Panzanella



MTC-00015410

From: Gary Capps
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the currently proposed anti-trust settlement 
with the Microsoft Corporation because the PFJ contains an overly 
narrow definition of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and ``API'' 
which means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release information 
about Windows interfaces would not cover many important interfaces 
like the Linux SAMBA project. Projects like SAMBA are of critical 
importance to enable alternative operating systems to survive in a 
Windows-dominated world.
    Gary Capps
    505 Parkside Road
    Norman, Oklahoma 73072



MTC-00015411

From: Rob Hagopian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam,
    I disagree with the settlement proposed in the Microsoft anti-
trust case. I feel that the lack of serious punishment only 
encourages the company to continue with its anti-competitive 
behavior. In addition, there is no means of enforcement spelled out, 
leaving the company free to find new ways to lock out competitors. 
If the wheels of justice were swift this would not be an issue, but 
this is generally not the case--Microsoft has been able to continue 
with its behavior even during the ongoing legal proceedings against 
it! I hope you reconsider and attempt to strengthen any settlement 
with the company.
    Sincerely,
    Rob Hagopian



MTC-00015412

From: Conklin, George (HTSC, IT)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 9:07 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is not 
sufficient and that stronger terms should be imposed to prevent 
future abuse and promote a competitive business environment in the 
software/computing industry.
    George Conklin
    57 Sunset Terrace
    Unionville, CT 06085



MTC-00015413

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whomever this concerns,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I have been 
using computers daily since the mid-eighties, when my father brought 
home an early portable IBM computer. I hope to earn my livelihood by 
working in the computing industry. Consequently, this issue is 
centrally relevant to my life. It is widely believed among those 
familiar with the case that the proposed settlement is completely 
inadequate. It will do little to punish Microsoft for it's plainly 
illegal conduct in the past, and virtually nothing whatsoever to 
prevent future violations of antitrust law. As a consumer, it 
infuriates me to be forced to pay for increasingly expensive 
software that diminishes in quality with each release. I applauded 
the Clinton administration's investigation of Microsoft. Their case 
was an effort to protect consumers and promote economic growth by 
restoring fairness and competition to the computer industry.
    Now that the DOJ is under new management, it has essentially 
abandoned it's pursuit of Microsoft, suggesting that the DOJ no 
longer has any concern for either economic growth or the public 
good. The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate. I urge 
all parties involved to reconsider the proposed settlement. 
Microsoft deserves more than a slap on the wrist for it's 
destructive abuse of it's monopoly power. More importantly, American 
consumers need to be protected against future abuses.
    Thank you for your time,
    Stephen C. VanDahm
    Spartanburg, SC.



MTC-00015414

From: Ryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:45 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not let Microsoft buy this one off. They broke the law and 
need to be punished for it.
    Ryan Flynn



MTC-00015415

From: William Wise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    If Microsoft has broken the law as the court has found then they 
should not only be restrained from committing further crimes (a goal 
that I do not think the proposed settlement will help to achieve to 
any large extent) but also PUNISHED for the crimes they have already 
committed (a goal the settlement ignores completely considering the 
largess Microsoft has amassed as a result of its illegal 
activities). When an individual is convicted of theft he or she is 
not simply placed under oversight by a committee and told to do no 
wrong. They are ordered to pay restitution if applicable and put on 
probation with possible jail time. I can see no reason why the same 
logic should not be applied to Microsoft. Perhaps this reflect my 
naivete but if justice is blind then this seems the only logical 
recourse. Thank you very much for considering the comments of a 
legal laymen but computer expert. I make my living using Microsoft 
products but, as an industry insider, am not at all comfortable with 
company's illegal behavior. I would love to see Microsoft a 
competitive good citizen in the IT industry but can't see it 
happening without Microsoft and its management receiving a cold 
slap. The settlement, as I see it, is a joke and am afraid that 
Microsoft will consider it as such.
    A settlement that would sting would:
    a) Take from Microsoft whatever portion of their cash reserve 
profits that can be directly

[[Page 26089]]

linked to their illegal behavior as well as damages indirectly 
associated with their market dominance which was gained through 
``giveaways'' that undermined competitors.
    b) Put Microsoft on probation under court supervision for 5-10 
years. Any infractions would cause a ``suspended'' sentence applied 
during the original case to come automatically into effect. (Open 
Sourcing the MS operating system or breaking up the company should 
be sufficiently strong)
    c) Force Microsoft's top management to leave the company without 
retaining their stock options.
    Thanks so much for you consideration of my comments, William 
Wise Manager, Information Systems



MTC-00015416

From: Jim Priest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I fully support and agree with the thoughts and expressions 
outlined in the following: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html 
Something needs to be done about Microsoft's anti-competitive 
business practices today.
    Jim Priest
    ClickCulture CTO



MTC-00015417

From: Jed S. Wilson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea.
    Regards,
    Jed Wilson
    6609 Rockingham Dr
    Fort Wayne, IN 46835



MTC-00015418

From: Stuckey, William E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    William E. Stuckey
    Network & Information System Coordinator
    IUPUI School of Liberal Arts
    425 University Blvd.
    Indianapolis, IN 46202
    (317)274-2978



MTC-00015419

From: Mike Hunter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Just writing to let you know that I sincerely hope any 
settelment with MS exerts wide-ranging controls on their ability to 
stifle competition for a long time, and isn't just the slap-on-the-
wrist that is currently being proposed.
    Please do as much as possible to stop MS.
    Mike



MTC-00015420

From: Leonard Appel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to take this time to let you know that I am very 
glad to hear that a settlement has been reached in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. The lawsuit was a tremendous waste of time and money 
and punished Microsoft for being a successful company. The role that 
Microsoft played is one of creating standards in the Computer 
industry similar to the role played by IBM and Digital in years 
past. Technology will eventually be the cause of a Microsoft eclipse 
not their alleged monopolistic practices.
    The proposed settlement is really quite reasonable and it 
sufficiently addresses Microsoft's problematic issues. I'm convinced 
they will be changing their business practices, especially yielding 
to drastic licensing concessions, so that fair competition will be 
restored in the computer industry. They've given up a great deal in 
this settlement and I ask that you please do your part to ensure 
that this settlement is upheld.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Appel



MTC-00015421

From: Joseph L Hood
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:16 am
Subject: Microsoft Anti-Trust Case
    Dear Sir:
    Please revisit your current solution to the Microsoft Anti-
Trust, it is not going to help us create better software. One would 
wonder how Teddy Roosevelt would feel about the your proposed 
solution.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph L. Hood



MTC-00015422

From: starcomp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad. It does not sufficiently 
reprimand Microsoft for their decades of commercial abuse. Millions 
every year are brainwashed into believing that anything stamped with 
Microsoft is a superior product, when it is known that all competing 
products were not only copied, but that the originals deserve the 
business for their innovation. However, forcing Microsoft to release 
their Windows source code may be the wrong path as well. Quite 
simply, I hope that Microsoft will be broken up into at least 3 
separate companies (Operating Systems, Office, all others), with the 
addition that none can have any business deals with any of the 
others for at least 25 years. I feel that this will be sufficient 
time for the digital economy to recover from Microsoft's tyranny. 
Thank you for your time, and I hope that our government can be 
counted upon to carry out this case to a fair and just end.
    Loyal Citizen



MTC-00015423

From: Chris Wells
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a BAD idea. Microsoft should be 
induced to compete in a FAIR and HONEST manner.



MTC-00015424

From: Jared W. Robinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am disappointed in the Microsoft Settlement because of the 
unreasonable restrictions on documentation from Microsoft. They 
disallow this information to be used to create applications that run 
on non-MS operating systems. This makes it difficult for an ISV to 
be competitive on more than one operating system, and locks them in 
to MS products.
    Thank you,
    Jared W. Robinson
    1383 N. 200 E.
    Springville, UT 84663



MTC-00015425

From: Doug Franklin
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, Today I write you to express my dissatisfaction with the 
Proposed Final Judgement entered in the U.S. versus Microsoft anti-
trust trial. In short, the proposed remedies do very little, if 
anything, to improve competition in the affected markets or ensure 
that the defendant cannot return to similar or identical 
anticompetitive behaviors in the future. From my perspective, the 
Proposed Final Judgement is so flawed that it cannot usefully be 
amended to reflect the requirements imposed by the Sherman Act and 
the Appeals Court ruling. I feel that only by imposing much stronger 
restrictions on the defendant could a Final Judgement in this case 
approach an effective response to the abusive practices proven 
against the defendant in the trial.
    Thank you,
    Douglas N. Franklin



MTC-00015426

From: Scott Purl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:08 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment that the proposed Microsoft settlement is 
entirely too lenient, and that harsher measures are called for. The 
recent proposal by Microsoft to give software away to schools is an 
attempt to get market share in an area that can not normally afford 
the Microsoft product, and that would probably be interested in a 
free or less-expensive competing product such as Linux.
    If the Microsoft products really are superior products, then let 
us see them sold seperately, instead of bundled with the operating 
system, and see what the invisible hand of the market decides.
    Yours,
    Scott Purl
    118 Riss Drive
    Normal, IL 61761
    309.888.9929



MTC-00015427

From: Scott Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:13 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26090]]

    I wish to express my dismay over the proposed settlement of the 
antitrust case against Microsoft. I cannot condone any outcome of 
this case which fails to punish a rapacious and unrepentant 
monopolist in any way. Please consign this proposal to the dustbin 
of history and proceed with the prosecution of this criminal 
organization.
    Thank you for your time and attention.
    Scott Collins
    ``BSD and Linux aren't `what you see is what you get' so much as 
`what you get is what you asked for, good and hard, and you deserve 
it'.' --Dan Sorenson



MTC-00015428

From: Felts, Tom
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 8:59 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I have been an active professional in the computing field for 
the last 7 years, largely supporting Microsoft products in 
enterprise environments. During this time, it seems that all major 
`innovations' by microsoft have actually been the co-opting of 
others initial work, and then `building it in to the operating 
system'. The web browser is one of these `innovations'. Digital 
media players is another. Web servers is another, and the list could 
go on and on, but the real point of this is that with Microsoft's 
dominant position, they can absorb ANY idea, change it a little, and 
then build it in to their desktop. This has a rather stifiling 
effect on the `little' guys, and has indeed given impetus to Open 
Licensing, and Free Software. If Microsoft put the effort into 
Security, rather than `market dominance', we would all be better 
off.
    The remedy proposed recently does not effectively deal with the 
reality of the situation. I am opposed to it in it's current 
incarnation.
    Thank you,
    Tom Felts



MTC-00015429

From: BJ Premore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement does enough to prevent 
Microsoft from throwing its weight around to gain unfair advantage 
in the future.
    BJ Premore
    Dept. of Computer Science
    Dartmouth College
    Hanover, New Hampshire



MTC-00015430

From: Chris Dos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is not a good thing. Microsoft has been strangling the 
computer industry for years. It's operating system is a monopoly and 
it must be stopped. Force Microsoft to open up the source code to 
it's operating systems so other vendors can make competing products. 
My thoughts are to break Microsoft up into four companies.
    1) Operating Systems
    2) Applications such as Microsoft Office
    3) Internet Portal such as MSN
    4) Internet applications such as Internet Explorer, IIS, etc.
    Only once this is done, will we see competition brought back to 
the market.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Dos
    Chris DosPresident
    Open Innovations LLC



MTC-00015431

From: J. Erickson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    James Erickson
    St. Paul, MN



MTC-00015432

From: Mark Mynsted
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the DOJ, proposed Microsoft Settlement. It is a 
good starting point but allows Microsoft far too much room to 
continue to act in an anti-competitive way. It is also terminated 
too quickly.
    Microsoft's behavior is and was outrageously unethical, 
consistent, systematic, and illegal. What is required are sanctions 
that would cause Microsoft to make a persistent, fundamental change 
in its behavior. The proposed settlement would not do this. This is 
a watered down slap on the wrist for Microsoft and is not in the 
public's best interest.
    Mark Mynsted
    (972) 354-2521 x1154--voicemail/fax
    Lesiville Texas, 75067



MTC-00015433

From: Canyon Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current proposed remedy in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case is not sufficient to cause ANY serious penalty to 
Microsoft. I believe that the state of the computer industry and the 
ability of competitors to to truly compete with Microsoft would NOT 
be furthered by this proposal. I strongly suggest that the 
Department of Justice not allow Microsoft to receive such a light 
penalty that even gives them protections that other companies do not 
enjoy.
    I agree with and have submitted to be co-signed as a supporter 
of Dan Kegel's Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    Canyon Russell
    --Security is directly proportional to inconvenience.--



MTC-00015434

From: Robert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:09 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I am deeply concerned about the lack of teeth in the proposed 
final judgement of the Microsoft Anti-Trust lawsuit. As a long time 
software developer (30+ years), I am frightened by the stranglehold 
that Microsoft has developed on the software industry. Their 
predatory, anti-competitive, and seemingly lawless practices 
threaten the vibrancy of the industry that gave them birth.
    My concerns are multiple, but all concern the ability of vendors 
to compete with Microsoft in either the Operating System or 
Application areas. For years Microsoft has ``enhanced'' the Windows 
``Operating System'' (OS) by incorporation of application software 
into the OS. By incorporating application software (browsers, media 
players, etc.), into the OS, Microsoft has blurred the distinction 
between the two. In many cases, this has discouraged innovation and 
research in those application areas. Nothing in the proposed final 
judgement addresses this practice.
    Microsoft has poorly documented the application program 
interface (API). Those parts of the API that are documented are 
poorly done, but there are large portions of the API that remain 
undocumented and fervently protected by Microsoft. This practice 
prohibits any vendor from developing a product to effectively 
compete with the Windows product line. There would simply be Windows 
applications that would not work on the competing product. Nothing 
in the proposed final judgement addresses this practice.
    Microsoft continues to hold forth extraordinary control over 
OEMs and large corporations in their restrictive license practices. 
Large corporations are forced into agreements that force them to buy 
Windows licenses for every computer the corporation owns or operates 
that CAN run the windows OS rather than those that do. OEMs are 
restricted from distribtuing open source software with their 
products. Nothing in the proposed final judgement addresses this 
practice. The proposed final judgement has virtually no enforcement 
provisions. While a technical committee will be established under 
the proposed final judgement to watch Microsoft, the technical 
committee has no recourse but to raise the flag and hopefully force 
Microsoft to return to court. This hardly

[[Page 26091]]

seems like enforcement. Overall, I have been dismayed by the conduct 
of the justice department in pursuing a judgement against Microsoft 
that would benefit the American citizen. Discouraging competition in 
the OS and application software industry, allowing licensing that 
smirks of monopolistic power, and not enabling the oversight 
committee with enforcement hardly seems in the best intrust of the 
American consumer.
    Sincerely,
    Robert W. Heller
    Software Engineer
    211 East Hermosa
    San Antonio, TX 78212-1779



MTC-00015435

From: Kroells, Daniel D.
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: microsoft Settlement
    If the currently proposed settlement goes through, microsoft 
will continue to monopolize the computer market. They are not being 
punished for being found guilty as a monopoly at all.
    Dan Kroells



MTC-00015436

From: Dan F
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:10 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement with microsoft in 
the antitrust trial. Microsoft has used an unfair advantage in the 
marketplace and this settlement does not fix that unfair advantage.
    Daniel Fuhr
    2837 SW Engler Ct. Topeka, KS 66614



MTC-00015437

From: Thomas Hunt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:11 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I do not think Microsoft should be able to get away with a 
settlement that is, essentially, a slap on the wrist. The company 
needs to be forced to open up its API's to outside companies and to 
open up Windows more.
    Thomas Hunt



MTC-00015438

From: James Lewis Longhurst
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a 
spectacularly bad idea. In particular, the settlement does not go 
far enough to make public Microsoft-proprietary software interfaces 
and formats. If Microsoft continues to hold a monopoly power over 
its own proprietary software, that monoploy will only increase over 
time due to the cumulative nature of software development. If the 
monopoly power is not limited now, it will become even less able to 
be limited in the future.
    As an historian, I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about 
the development and application of the Sherman Anti-Trust act. This 
seems to me to be a perfect time for government intervention.
    James Longhurst
    Carnegie Mellon University
    Department of History



MTC-00015439

From: Richard Cooper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Thanks
    Richard Cooper
    Web Developer
    Digital Animations Group plc
    Hamilton House
    Strathclyde Business Park
    Bellshill, ML4 3NJ
    United Kingdom
    tel : +44 (0)1698 503300
    fax : +44 (0)1698 503399



MTC-00015440

From: Jeff Willis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    I think the settlement with Microsoft, after weighing in 
everything, is most likely a bad idea.



MTC-00015441

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It has too 
many loopholes, too many easy ways for Microsoft to evade 
restrictions and penalties. And Microsoft, being Microsoft, WILL 
take advantage of any opportunities for continued monopolistic 
behavior. One of the WORST provisions is the one allowing Microsoft 
to be selective in whom they release code, interface specs, and the 
like to. They are being allowed to select only those who have a 
significant business profile, the big Fortune-500 and similar 
companies. Currently, far more innovative programming is being done 
in the Open Source area, by garage-shop companies and even by 
individual volunteer programmers.
    This is the area Microsoft most fears--it is impossible for them 
to crush competitors who are NOT driven by profit, it is impossible 
to sue thousands of individual--and THIS is the group who can do the 
most good for a competetive market by being given the information 
that will allow them to build software to give consumers a choice. I 
feel that the solution being suggested by the nine states that did 
not agree with the DOJ settlement, while perhaps not perfect, is FAR 
SUPERIOR to the DOJ settlemnt, and should be taken as the base for 
the eventual final settlement.
    James M. Hartley Jr.
    28 Cathy Road
    Poughkeepsie, NY 12603



MTC-00015442

From: Rich Gordley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Persuant to the Tunney Act, I would like to protest the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. The settlement does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from behaving in the future as they have in the past. In 
addition, the settlement does not punish Microsoft appropriately for 
its violations of anti trust regulations.
    Rich Gordley
    Head Programmer
    Diversified Software Technology
    West Des Moines IA



MTC-00015443

From: Mike Metzler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am deeply disturbed by the DOJs apparent lack of gumption in 
seeing to it Microsoft suffers any real penalties for it's predatory 
monopolist actions. I am also concerned with the DOJ's 180 degree 
change of attitude after the Bush administration took over the 
department. Please help restore my faith in my government in these 
trying times and throw out this anti competitive settlement. I love 
my country and am loathe to see it's policies and laws dictated by 
the companies with the most money and political influence. Sorry for 
my strong wording, but after the Florida Presidential election 
ballot box problems, I was concerned there might be a board 
attempting to decide whether this was a vote for, or against the 
settlement. I hope my feelings are now clear on this matter.
    Thanks
    Mike Metzler



MTC-00015444

From: Kenneth Sewell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a voting US citizen and as a professional in the computer 
field, I am voicing my disapproval of the current Microsoft 
settlement. The proposed settlement is a joke. No real penalty is 
brought against Microsoft for their monopolistic practices. 
Microsofts monopoly hurts all computer consumers, including the 
Federal and State governments. The only way to ensure competition 
and innovation is to break Microsoft into at least two separate 
operating system companies (maybe a third for applications). Also, 
some kind of federal mandate that all government offices use some 
percentage of open source software such as Linux or FreeBSD. 
Currently the attitude in federal offices and labs is ``Nobody ever 
got fired for buying Microsoft.'' You have the

[[Page 26092]]

power to level the playing field. Until now the multi-billion dollar 
cash pile in Redmond has been able to buy ``MS Justice'', I truly 
hope that you will not accept the current settlement, it will only 
hurt American computer users for generations.
    Thanks.
    Ken Sewell
    Beavercreek, Ohio



MTC-00015445

From: Tatum, Josh SITI-ITDSAO
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Josh Tatum



MTC-00015446

From: Gaarde
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Digital Research
    Quarterdeck
    Netscape
    Almost Symantec... If you can't beat them or buy them... crush 
them. Microsoft has deeper pockets than the compitition. They don't 
need to compete. They just buy the compitition or sue them so much 
the compitition must spend all thier vulture capital on Lawyers 
instead of R&D. If this is allowed to happen to even one company, it 
hurts the industry. Unfortunately, the old crones in ``power'' 
(congress and senate) don't have a clue about these ``new fangled 
computer thingies.'' How can one make laws based on something they 
know little or nothing about?
    You want to make new laws to stop Microsoft from doing this 
stuff in the future? Can you say grandfather clause? The damage is 
already done. How about laws that SEVERELY PUNISH EVERY individual 
within ANY company that is caught doing ANYTHING unethical. Oh 
yea... thats right... then you won't get your new library.... just 
another form of a bribe. Hide behind the truth and call it standard 
business practice. I can't count the number of times I have heard of 
unethical business practices Microsoft uses from reputable sources. 
Yet somehow, the Justice department ALWAYS looks the other way. 
Hrmmm... Kick backs, bribes... having daddies law-firm purchase 
judges. Don't pretend ``the system'' is uncorruptable. Shall I bring 
up ballot stuffing? Yea... they were caught on that one too... but 
as usual... Microsoft buys its freedom. At what point does the 
unethical business practices get deemed too much? How much harm must 
an industry have done to it before the bribes and kickbacks are no 
longer effective?
    The DOJ broke up AT&T... it didn't help... it slowed them down a 
few years. Now they have a monopoly on Cable-modem access. Breaking 
up companies with deep pockets doesn't help. Public funds should go 
into public research and development... not some proprietary 
software companies pockets. PUBLIC service... not private service.
    What message are we sending future generations? ``It's ok to be 
unethical and irresponcible as long as you have a lot money and can 
hide behind a corporate name.''
    The people have cried out time and time again... but the crones 
ears are deaf. Revolution, not reform.



MTC-00015447

From: Nick Wesselman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft must receieve a 
true punishment for its monopolistic practices.
    Nick Wesselman
    Milwaukee, WI



MTC-00015448

From: Bort, Paul
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement should not be accepted because 
part of the proposed remedy will only serve to continue the 
Microsoft monopoly. By giving Microsoft software to schools, the 
company will extend their monopoly by introducing students to their 
operating systems, applications, and worst of all, marketing. There 
is nothing in the settlement that prevents Microsoft from giving 
software to the schools that includes pro-Microsoft advertisements, 
aside from the natural inclination of the school administrators and 
teachers to be thankful for the software and equipment they have 
recieved.



MTC-00015449

From: Barry Wimlett (091) Endless Solutions (093)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope to see a more suitable settlement than the one currently 
proposed for the Microsoft Monopolies case. Microsoft owns a 
monopoly for computer desktop operating systems. Steps must be taken 
to ensure that microsoft does not unfairly leverage this platform to 
unfairly forward itself in other markets, such as it did with 
Internet Browsers in the mid 1990s.

OEM Contracts

    The only fair way to prevent Microsoft from leveraging this is 
to firstly look at the contracts and prices it forces OEM computer 
equipment suppliers such as Dell and Gateway to sign, to ensure that 
``unfair'' clauses such as ``No Internet Browser software other than 
Microsofts shall be shipped with an OEM supplied Microsoft Operating 
system.'' This prevented companies from shipping Netscape Navigator 
as well as Internet Explorer with the machine.
    All OEM Equipment Supplier MUST be allowed to buy Microsoft 
Operating systems at the same price, and be free to offer any other 
software in addition to that supplied by Microsoft without prejudice 
against them.

Bundled Software

    If Microsoft want to ship a version of a product such as say 
``Media Player'' bundled with the Windows Operating system then 
opportunity must be given to other competing products to be included 
on the Windows CD, or Microsoft must unbundle the product. This 
ensures that Microsoft and its competitors face the same ``barriers 
to market'' as each other.
    Hope these two suggestions help, they are simple and straight 
forward I hope.
    Barry Wimlett
    non US-Resident



MTC-00015450

From: Peter Deweese
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft is the only 
software company that dosen't have to compete by raising the quality 
of its products. For example, Windows XP is windows 2000 in new 
packaging, as compared to Apple's incredible new operating system 
blows it away but stands no chance against MS tactics.
    Peter DeWeese



MTC-00015451

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the provisions of the Tunney Act, I wish to provide my 
comments before a final decision is made on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Having reviewed numerous press reports on the 
settlement, and many of the official court documents available to 
the public, I believe the proposed settlement is unacceptable in 
light of the findings of fact, and does not go far enough in 
attempts to remedy the situation. It is too open to interpretation, 
which is precisely the sort of environment which Microsoft thrives 
in--twisting and stretching the letter of the law as much as they 
can to suit their purposes. I sincerely hope the Department of 
Justice rejects this settlement, and pushes for stricter regulations 
and punative actions against Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Richard McMahon
    Fort Worth, Texas



MTC-00015452

From: Rob Lembree
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This communication is pursuant to the Tunney Act period for 
public comment, and is authored by Robert Lembree, 29 Milk St., 
Nashua, NH 03064-1651, (603) 880-6768.
    The proposed settlement of the anti-trust case against Microsoft 
by the United States Government is grossly inadequate and does 
little more than hand Microsoft a government sponsored marketing 
opportunity. Rather than punish Microsoft for its illegal activities 
as a monopoly, it strengthens Microsoft's already dominant market 
position and therefore runs directly contrary to the intention of 
the anti-trust finding and prosecution.
    It is clear that either Microsoft itself or parties biased in 
Microsoft's favor were involved in the crafting of the agreement. 
The agreement is riddled with loopholes that not only preserve 
Microsoft's dominance, but

[[Page 26093]]

also which discourage the development of alternative technologies.
    A case in point is that while companies may develop alternate 
technologies, the APIs and access to critical file formats (such as 
media formats) prevent these alternate technologies from being 
compatible in any way with Microsoft's dominant technology. This 
means that Windows Media format files, which dominate the media 
available on the Internet because of Microsoft's monopolistic 
practices, remain off limits to those not using Microsoft's 
operating systems and/or tools. Microsoft's own licensing prohibits 
the development of open source tools with their software development 
kits, and prohibits the development of tools for operating systems 
other than Windows. The settlement fails to remedy in this case.
    This is one of literally a hundred cases in point that I can 
think of, but I don't want to deluge you. The point that I want to 
get across is that Microsoft's dominance in the marketplace has 
caused a stifling effect on innovation because if Microsoft doesn't 
want competitive solutions, it is simple for it to make meaningful 
competition impossible through any number of means: * obfuscation in 
its dominant operating system (``we don't supply APIs for that'') * 
exclusivity deals with content providers (``if you use only MS 
format files on your website, you get consideration'') * failure to 
support competing operating systems such as Linux or MacOS with key 
application (non-OS) technologies And there are more.
    Any meaningful remedy will undo some of the damaging effects of 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, such as the publication of 
important APIs, the removal of restriction on using Microsoft's 
application technologies on non-Microsoft operating systems, and so 
on.
    regards,
    robert lembree



MTC-00015453

From: Paul Keusemann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The propose settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. Microsoft 
has never show any willingness to modify its behaviour of its own 
accord and the proposed settlement does nothing to end Microsoft's 
unlawful conduct. The proposed settlement give Microsoft ample room 
to maintain their current monopoly and extend it into new areas. If 
nothing else, the concentration of money and power that Microsoft 
has accumulated is detrimental to national security.
    Please do not allow this settlement to be approved.
    Paul Keusemann [email protected]
    4266 Joppa Court (952) 894-7805
    Savage, MN 55378



MTC-00015454

From: Michael Jennings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is an extremely abusive company. The abuses presented 
in the antitrust case against Microsoft are only a small selection 
of the total. The proposed settlement with Microsoft is government 
corruption. If it is accepted, those in the DOJ whose names are 
involved with it will have to live with it for the rest of their 
lives. Those wanting dishonesty in government will be your friends. 
Those wanting dishonesty will avoid you and oppose you.
    Regards,
    Michael Jennings
    Futurepower Computer Systems



MTC-00015455

From: Anthony McDowell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The currently proposed settlement between Microsoft Corp. and 
the United States is terrible for consumers and the industry; let me 
explain why. My name is Anthony McDowell. I am a Computer 
Engineering student and Army cadet at Mississippi State University. 
My responsibilities within the Army require that I do extensive work 
with computers and computer systems. Therefore, I feel particularly 
compelled to respond to this call for public opinion.
    I have been involved in the computer industry since I was about 
nine years old. In that time, I have seen Microsoft evolve from 
being a rather equal partner in the global computer industry to one 
which has abused and created circumstances which were unfortunate 
for their competitors.
    Therefore, I believe that the settlement of Microsoft's anti-
trust case, as currently proposed, is not strong enough. Microsoft 
has demonstrated in the past that it does not take legal rulings to 
heart. During the ramp-up period prior to Microsoft's release of its 
WindowsXP operating system, Microsoft intentionally worked to cause 
any legal ramifications to be delayed long enough to allow the 
operating system into the market. That move alone has done gone 
great harm to the industry. The ``features'' Microsoft has bundled 
with this operating system release have already shut out a great 
many competitors and severely inhibited the abilities of others. For 
example, Microsoft's ``Windows Media Player'' application has been 
mutated to a point such that it performs functions previously done 
by various competitors. Media Player has removed the ``need'' for 
products such as RealAudio Player from RealSystems, QuickTime Player 
from Apple Computers, and WinAmp from Nullsoft/AOL-Netscape-Time 
Warner. Microsoft's web browser, Internet Explorer has also 
attempted to purge the market of competitors. By developing 
Microsoft-specific extensions to the HTML web programming language, 
Microsoft has attempted to ensure that only their browsers are used 
to connect to web pages. These Microsoft-specific extension not only 
perform special functions if viewed in Internet Explorer, they also 
tend to cause non-Internet Explorer browsers to crash, presenting 
the facade that these competing products are ``buggy'' or of lesser 
quality then the Microsoft Browser.
    This kind of Microsoft exclusivity has also been seen migrating 
into their software development products such as Microsoft Visual 
Studio. In Microsoft J++, a component product of Visual Studio used 
for developing JAVA-based applications, Microsoft has again added 
Microsoft-specific extensions or functionality which performs 
reasonably well on a Microsoft platform, but often causes 
applications to appear buggy or non-functional on competing 
platforms.
    These cases are but a few from Microsoft's extensive and far-
reaching dossier of anti-competitive practices. It is by using the 
practices stated above, circumstances not currently covered by the 
proposed settlement, that Microsoft will continue to be a monopoly 
and will continue to control how and when things are done inside the 
consumer computer market. Under normal circumstances, I would agree 
that Microsoft is simply being a good competitor by attempting to 
further their product gains. However, Microsoft holds a trump card 
which most companies normally don't: they also control the platform 
which their products are based on. It is like allowing Ford, or 
Daimler-Chrysler to control how roads are built so that their 
automobiles run more smoothly on them.
    Operating systems are one of the fundamental pieces of software 
which a computer uses.; no computer will operate without one. As 
such, I propose the removing of all operating systems from companies 
currently producing them. This would include Windows (all versions) 
from Microsoft, MacOS from Apple, and the various Linux/UNIX/Posix 
compliant operating systems from other smaller companies. Further, I 
suggest that these companies enter into a government-supervised 
council which has the sole purpose of developing a platform-
independent, consumer-level operating system to be released to the 
public free of charge. If a computer cannot function without an 
operating system, then I feel consumers are being placed in ``double 
jeopardy'' by being forced to pay twice simply to use the computer. 
A free operating system such as this would allow a consumer to 
purchase a computer without the worries of licensing on the most 
fundamental level. This operating system would be platform 
independent enough to run on Intel/AMD x86 class microsoprocessors, 
the PowerPC class microprocessors used in Apple-branded computers, 
and others. Consumers would then have the freedom to purchase 
software products based on their merits, not on their platform 
requirements. Unfortunately, while most of the nation is aware of 
the basic facts in this case, only the few who actually work in this 
industry are entirely aware of its importance and the legal 
precedent which stands to be made. If Microsoft is allowed to leave 
this case with such a simple and un-correcting punishment against 
them, they will lay the groundwork for other anti-competitive 
companies to use money and legal tactics in the same fashion. 
Therefore, I feel compelled to use my knowledge and understanding of 
this case for the betterment of the public at large. The terms of 
this agreement are terribly underpowered and un-enforceable. As a 
soldier in the United States Army, I feel particularly afraid that 
the

[[Page 26094]]

United States legal system is going to allow these kinds of 
companies to control the very computer systems which I must use to 
help safeguard the lives of my fellow soldiers and the American 
populace. In conclusion, I would like to re-iterate Microsoft's 
passion for ignoring legal proceedings. Unless a stronger ruling is 
issued against Microsoft, nothing will change. Despite the great 
costs involved a case of this magnitude, Microsoft has continued to 
prosper and profit financially from their monopoly in this market. 
Unless something is done with serious ramifications, the results of 
this case will be business as usual for Microsoft and fewer choices 
and less computer security for consumers.
    Thank You and Best Regards,
    Anthony McDowell
    Student, Mississippi State University
    Cadet, United States Army



MTC-00015456

From: Donald Grayson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    As a concerned consumer I am deeply troubled by the direction of 
the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust trials. Indeed, 
the way the settlement is worded it only appears to hand Microsoft 
even more power in the future with regards to thier stranglehold on 
the publics exposure to computers, the Internet and upcoming 
consumer electronics devices.
    We cannot afford as a nation to have one company be the sole 
interface to how we communicate to each other. Microsoft has 
demonstrated that it is incapable of playing by the accepted rules 
of business in the US and should be punished accordingly.
    I feel that the settlement proposed by the states in non-
agreement with the current settlement does far more to control 
Microsoft as a company and to help level the field for competiters 
in the market.
    Thank you.
    Donald Grayson
    Kentucky



MTC-00015457

From: Andres Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I'm not an U.S. citizen, but I feel that this case also affects 
me as the monopoly of Microsoft is impacting to many countries 
(included mine). I don't like the proposed settlement, and would 
like if my opinion could be taken into account.
    Thanks.



MTC-00015458

From: Bennett C. Baker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern;
    I am writing this letter to express my opinion that the 
currently proposed Microsoft settlement is completely inadequate in 
terms of the remedies proposed for Microsoft's blatant, frequent, 
arrogant, and ongoing abuse of its monopoly position. I am 
especially distressed to find that the proposed settlement does 
absolutely nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to 
deliberately and cynically sabotage its implementation of public-
domain communications protocols in order to break compatibility with 
non-Microsoft products and protocols. This behavior, if left 
unchecked, will create immeasurably high barriers to entry for any 
entity wishing to work with or create products for the Internet or 
the World Wide Web. Current basic Internet protocols are in the 
public domain, and any entity can create equipment or services for 
use with the internet. If Microsoft succeeds in their attempted 
Balkanization of formerly public protocols, all would-be players on 
the Internet field would have to pay a tithe to Microsoft or face an 
enormously high barrier to entry, thereby effectively destroying the 
innovation which so often comes from smaller entities.
    In closing, I strongly urge that the proposed settlement be 
amended to provide some real protection to all of us from 
Microsoft's continued predation. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bennett C. Baker
    B::Ware
    [email protected]
    http://www.bware.com
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015459

From: Cosimo Leipold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea.



MTC-00015460

From: Tim Maletic
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:15am
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 proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I find numerous problems with the proposed 
settlement, but, for me, two stand out: the lack of a requirement 
upon Microsoft to publish its APIs, and the wording in III.J.2 that 
allows Microsoft to decide with whom it must share technical 
information.
    As Ralph Nader has written elsewhere, ``[U]nder J.1 and J.2 of 
the proposed final order, Microsoft can withhold technical 
information from third parties on the grounds that Microsoft does 
not certify the ``authenticity and viability of its business,'' 
while at the same time it is describing the licensing system for 
Linux as a ``cancer'' that threatens the demise of both the 
intellectual property rights system and the future of research and 
development.'' Is it not obvious how Microsoft will respond to 
requests for technical information from developers of Open Source 
software?
    I urge you to reconsider your position.
    Sincerely,
    Tim Maletic, CISSP
    Information Systems Security Officer
    Priority Health, Grand Rapids, MI



MTC-00015461

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am a US Citizen and I feel that the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case will do nothing to change the monopolistic 
practices of Microsoft. Any settlement which does not severly 
restrict Microsoft from simultanious operation in the OS and 
Internet, and Applications market will do little to create a fair 
open computer software arena in which competitors have a chance.
    I recently upgraded a computer from Windows 95 to Windows XP. 
Windows XP is an advertising platform for additional generally 
unrelated Microsoft products and services.
    As a specific example the ``Passport'' advertizement is a 
carefully worded almost lie. When you attempt to connect to the 
internet the XP system prompts you popping up a window saying that 
you MUST have a passport to browse the internet. This is untrue and 
the average user will be unable to distinguish between the actual 
wording that says you MUST have a passport for the use of MICROSOFT 
services the the wording I used above.
    There are numerious other advertising features embeded in XP 
which present Microsoft products and services as the necessary for 
use of the OS or Internet. These presentations are unfair and 
continue to bolster Microsofts monopolistic position in the software 
market.
    John Roll
    Computer Software Engineer
    Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
    [email protected]



MTC-00015462

From: Glenn Sokol
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current Microsoft anti-trust settlement is 
ineffective. Microsoft should have to conform to standard file 
extensions, so that all programs on all operating systems can read a 
particular file. I also believe that Microsoft should release many 
of its programs (games, office applications, desktop applications) 
for other operating systems (not just Macintosh). I hope the 
Department of Justice recognizes the voices of the public and takes 
heed to the suggestions.
    Glenn Sokol
    SGI
    Co-op
    [email protected]
    Work: 212.370.8640
    Cell: 203.895.5289



MTC-00015463

From: Dave Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:14am

[[Page 26095]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to add my comments on the proposed remedy of the 
Microsoft antitrust trial.
    The best way to restore healthy competition in the software 
development industry is to force Microsoft to completely release all 
source code of all their products as ``open source'' or public 
domain.
    Just like affirmative action policies had to be instituted to 
compensate decades of descrimination against minorities, a period of 
compensation needs to be established to restore competition to the 
software development industry. Although this would be devastating to 
Microsoft for a period of time they could be allowed to continue to 
move forward with the other provisions provided in the proposed 
remedy.
    Another area I feel is lacking in the proposed remedy is 
adequate protection of the small consumer. Microsoft has charged 
consumers large and small for ``upgrades'' that were really repairs 
to faulty code. Microsoft needs to be held accountable for their 
product defects. The consumer should have access to free and 
unlimitted support. Goverment oversite of Microsoft's problem 
tracking needs to be implemented just like there is government 
oversite of utility services. A utility is a publicly approved 
monopoly and is allowed to be one becaused it is heavily regulated. 
Microsoft has become an un-approved monopoly and will require 
regulation until the competition has recovered enough for the market 
to work properly.
    Thank you for considering these ideas
    Sincerely
    David C Anderson
    5011 W 66th St
    Prairie Village, KS



MTC-00015464

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    With all due respect any settlement between Microsoft and The 
United States is doomed to failure for several reasons. First and 
foremost, Microsoft has not and will not change what and how they do 
things, no matter what the judgement is, unless a tremendous amount 
of force is brought to bear, probably more force than the government 
apparently is willing to use. They will continue to dump ``free'' 
software, which is not truely free but which has the cost bundled 
with their products, and thereby damage and destroy competitors, 
much as other countries have tried to dump steel and microchips in 
our markets.
    Microsoft will continue to bundle these ``free'' items with 
their operating systems, giving them a tremendous advantage over 
competitors, even when those same competitors have better products 
but which are not ``free'' and are not available by default.
    They will continue to modify their operating system so that 
compeating products do not work as well as their own products. There 
are other issues, but this should be sufficient. Give up, you have 
lost, and you and I must learn to live in a Microsoft world with 
limited choices and limited freedoms.
    Sincerely,
    James Clements



MTC-00015465

From: Ian
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is evil.



MTC-00015466

From: Roy Brickley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to comment on the proposed settlement of the DOJ 
and nine states attorneys general vs. Microsoft. I consider this a 
very poor settlement proposal in regards to the findings of the 
appeals court in this case. The proposed settlement has very little 
purposeful punishment of the crimes committed by Microsoft. Also, 
the wording of the settlement provides many cases where Microsoft 
can effectively continue business as usual, including competetive 
practices that have been found illegal by the appeals court. I ask 
that this proposed settlement be rejected and that either the court 
construct an appropriate judgment or consider the counter-proposal 
of the nine states that did not sign on to this proposed settlement.
    Thank you,
    Roy Brickley
    31148 Oakhill Way
    Hayward, CA 94544



MTC-00015467

From: Bruce Tong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm a software developer at a small company in S. E. Ohio who 
specializes in nursing education software but who also consults for 
local businesses. The big companies (Microsoft, Sun, etc.) have no 
idea who we are, and this opinion in unsolicited.
    It is my opinion choice and competition needs to be restored to 
the desktop operating system market. If this is left to normal 
market forces, it will be 10 years before the situation will change. 
To accomplish this, I would break up Microsoft into 3-4 identical 
companies. Give each of the companies --all-- of Microsoft's current 
technologies and divide Microsoft's other assets equally.
    In my eyes, the desktop operating system market would then have 
no majority player. The various MS children would have to compete to 
sign deals with hardware vendors and service providers, instead of 
the current situation where Microsoft can demand terms from those 
organizations. --
    Bruce Tong
    Got me an office; I'm there late at night.
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Just send me e-mail, maybe I'll write.
    Electronic Vision / FITNE
    [email protected] --Joe Walsh for the 21st Century



MTC-00015469

From: Ross A. Knepper
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I wish to register my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I object to the proposal for the following reasons:
    1) Fundamentally, the settlement would treat the symptoms of the 
problem, rather than the problem itself. The remedies spelled out in 
the proposal are overly specific, to the point that microsoft can 
still find other means not mentioned to continue abusing its 
monopoly.
    2) For example, one omission for the settlement proposal is 
competing windows-compatible operating systems, such as WINE on 
Linux. Microsoft intentionally erects a large Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities, 
which the settlement would not prohibit.
    3) As another example, Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source applications from running on 
Windows, and they similarly restrict Windows applications from 
running on other operating systems. The proposed final judgement 
would prohibit neither of these licensing terms.
    4) Beyond the licensing terms, Microsoft uses continuous 
intentional incompatibilities from one release to the next to 
prevent applications from running on competing operating systems. 
Once again, this behavior would not be restricted.
    5) Finally, the proposal as currently written lacks an effective 
enforcement mechanism. There is no real penalty for disobeying its 
terms. In conclusion, i would like to assert that the proposed 
settlement is really not settlement at all. If we allow it, we are 
conceeding to Microsoft, and they win the case. Their abuse of 
monopoly powers would go on unabated.
    As an alternative, I would propose splitting the company up, but 
not into an operating systems and applications division. Rather, I 
would suggest splitting it up into two competing Microsofts, each of 
which inherits all the code of the parent company. They would be 
forced to develop their code independantly, and any standards would 
have to be publically announced such that other competitors might 
write compliant code as well. And best of all, Microsoft would 
finally have some equal competition.
    Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Ross A Knepper
    Ross A Knepper
    34 Kessler Farm Dr. #574
    Nashua, NH 03063
    H: (603) 889-7778
    W: (603) 884-9088



MTC-00015470

From: Michael Sandford
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26096]]

Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the current proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
case is too lax and that it requires further strengthening in order 
to be in full compliance with the law. Microsoft has developed a 
whole new software development environment called (dot).NET that is 
not mentioned in the settlement, and that would allow the current 
settlement to be a setback of miniscule proportions. They have even 
announced how (dot).NET is the successor to the currently used JVM, 
and yet the settlement does nothing to make sure (dot).NET will 
continue to be open. It also does not do enough to make sure that 
all software vendors can get access to the Windows APIs, nor does it 
open up access to all APIs that Microsoft currently implements. This 
would allow Microsoft to shift their focus from the products 
mentioned in the settlement, to those that are not and continue 
using restrictive licensing and other unfair anti-competetive 
practices.
    Michael Sandford
    EE/CE student at UNF



MTC-00015471

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is inappropriate. While 
rectifying SOME of the practices which were found to be 
anticompetitive, it fails to sufficiently restrict further similar 
anticompetitive practices.
    Thank you,
    Gregory W. Alexander
    12330 Metric. BLVD
    Austin, TX 78758
    POWER4 Microprocessor Design, IBM Corporation.
    The views expressed herein are my own, and not necessarily those 
of my employer.



MTC-00015472

From: Shawn P. Garbett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hash: SHA1
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I'm against an easy settlement against Microsoft. I've been a 
programmer in the industry for sixteen years and Microsoft has truly 
made certain aspects of my job difficult.
    Time and time again over these years they have abused their 
position to their profit. Like for example, they published a 
developer's standard for versioning. Then when they broke that 
standard, it forced everyone who was developing for their software 
to buy upgrades to their development tools if you wished to release 
products for the Microsoft environment. This not only cost companies 
across the company major money in forced licensing, but also time in 
retooling their programming departments. Then after the wave of 
complaints from developers, they had the nerve to do it again and 
again and again.
    They continue to take industry standards and with a well known 
strategy of theirs, they adopt the standard. Then once they get a 
majority of users on their side of the fence using their tools they 
change the standard. Several times they have attempted to copyright 
their extensions, so that noone else can interoperate with their 
software. This causes a wave of programming development throughout 
the industry for no gain other than increasing Microsoft's 
dominance. More money and wasted effort on the part of programmers 
and IT departments throughout the world. With no real benefit to 
anyone but Microsoft.
    A full fifty percent of my time over my career has been spent 
reworking things that don't need reworking because Microsoft has a 
plan for industry dominance that forces programmers to rework. 
During this time, microsoft has not shown much concern for the user 
with the frequent reboots required and total lack of security in 
it's products.
    The UNIX tools I used when I started have grown and changed some 
over the years. But the originals still work, the standards they 
were built upon still work. I can't find a single Microsoft tool or 
``standard'' I originally used that would still work in a reasonable 
manner. Microsoft needs swift and harse penalties for it's anti-
competitive policies that have caused years of set back in the 
industry. This productive energy that has been wasted playing their 
game could have been spent on innovation.
    Proposals for the settlement:
    (1) I think if anyone thing comes from the judgement, that 
Microsoft should not be allowed to ``Adopt and Extend'' any 
published standard. The adopt part is fine, the extend or change is 
not. Example: They adopted Kerberose and have created a set of 
extensions to make their software incompatible. They have 
copyrighted those extensions.
    (2) They should not be allowed to break their own standards for 
versioning of system libraries. The release of different versions of 
system libraries with the same version number should be prohibited. 
This is the dirty trick they used to force upgrades of their 
compilers and some users.
    (3) They should be forced to open their source code to their 
operating systems (i.e. Windows) to the world. I've written several 
packages to interoperate with Microsoft products only to notice that 
their own function in a superior manner. Upon investigation, they 
were using unpublished back doors. Any software working through the 
``front door'' was penalized in perfomance and reliability, while 
their own development departments were using the secret ``back 
door''. Published source code would prevent such hamstringing of 
developers, as any ``back door'' would be immediately apparent. This 
would also have the effect of ``auditing'' their code for security 
problems and force them to upgrade many security holes. This would 
actually benefit users greatly in terms of performance, reliability 
and security. Any anti-competitive pieces of code would be easily 
identifiable.
    (4) I'm highly in favor of splitting the company between an OS 
company and a tools company. This be the easiest, lowest policing 
method of insuring many abuses don't occur in the future. If you 
don't think this is necessary, then put it as a penalty clause for 
violating any terms of the final judgement. Then if they go back to 
their preditory practices, they will be split.
    Thank you,
    Shawn Garbett
    4037 General Bate Drive
    Nashville, TN 37204
    (615) 292-6496



MTC-00015473

From: Mark Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is a bad, bad idea. MS has shown 
repeatedly that they are willing to use their massive financial 
weight to force their products on the public. Any settlement that 
does not significantly alter the way MS does business is a mistake 
and will lead to continued MS homogony.
    Thank you,
    Mark Ross, Webmaster.
    [email protected]
    (818) 846-1710 x331



MTC-00015474

From: Art Cancro
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to express my opposition to the ``settlement'' 
currently being floated for the Microsoft antitrust case. The 
proposed settlement is completely one-sided, providing Microsoft 
with ample opportunity to continue ``business as usual'' 
(steamrolling any competition that gets in their way) without adding 
any significant checks or balances to slow them down.
    Please reject this settlement and seek actual remedies.
    Art Cancro [email protected]>
    System Administrator, XAND Corporation



MTC-00015475

From: Mike Cathey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir;
    I co-signed Dan Kegel's open letter, but I would like to express 
some personal concerns of mine as well.
    The PFJ doesn't prevent Microsoft from continuing it's current 
atni-competetive practices. There is a point at which capitalism can 
inhibit free enterprise. I believe that Microsoft has reached that 
point. They have and are currently using their current monopoly--in 
workstation operating systems--to establish monopolies in other 
markets (READ internet access, home enteratinment systems, etc). 
They have restrictive licensing on their development environments 
that prohibits their use to create non-MS Windows software/
applications. Finally, the PFJ would allow them to bring lawsuits 
against excellent software projects, like samba (see http://
www.samba.org/), which are working towards integration--not market 
domination.
    Thank you for listening to the concerns of a voter.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Cathey

[[Page 26097]]



MTC-00015476

From: Judson Holt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is wrong. It does 
not go far enough to restore competitiveness.
    To me, competitiveness means that there must be a way for a 
third-party software company to come up with an operating system 
that is completely compatible with the hardware and applications 
that currently work with Windows. As I understand it, the best way 
to do this is to require Microsoft to publish its APIs. I have used 
Microsoft products for a long time. First MS-DOS on an IBM PC, then 
Windows 3.1, then Windows95, WindowsNT, and now I'm using 
Windows2000. However, I have been continually frustrated by the 
additional ``features'' that have been tacked on with each 
successive generation of O/S. I would love to be able to buy a 
``stripped down'' Windows with few features, low computing overhead, 
high stability and high security that is still compatible with all 
the application software that's already available. I doubt Microsoft 
will ever consider making this kind of OS. In a truly competitive 
environment I should be able to buy such an operating system from a 
third-party vendor, assuming people like me formed a large enough 
niche market.
    Judson Holt
    MIT Chemistry
    (617) 253-6964
    [email protected]



MTC-00015477

From: Simon Buckley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I feel that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust 
case serves as neither punishment nor discouragement. After many 
years of discussion, we have now reached a point where we all agree 
that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive practices, and 
circumvented previous attempts at oversight. Please, its time to 
reign them in and allow a second technology boom.
    Sincerely
    Simon Buckley



MTC-00015478

From: Linda Welles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:18am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    It's time to wrap this up and let Microsoft get on with running 
a business. Let's face it, the world of innovation has been in a 
slump ever since this antitrust started. Think about it ... there 
has been a gradual slowing down of the economy ever since this 
began. NOW, let's get this settled as it stands and get on with 
other things like ENRON and ANDERSON!



MTC-00015479

From: Steve Wright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I am a software developer who works in a multi-platform 
environment. It is my belief that Microsoft's actions to attain and 
keep their monopoly may be good for Microsoft, but that they have a 
negative effect on the industry as a whole. I am concerned that the 
current settlement with the company does nothing to address 
Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. They are being let go with a slap 
on the wrist. I encourage you to take stronger measures.
    Thank you,
    Steve Wright



MTC-00015480

From: Gary D. Cupp, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I believe that this settlement is a bad idea.
    Gary Cupp
    HelpNet, LLC
    P.O. Box 2157
    Harrisonburg, VA 22801
    ``Jesus is Lord!''



MTC-00015481

From: Fredericks, Fred
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:18am
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 would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have several problems with the settlement.
    (1) The PFJ does not prohibit Microsoft from increasing the 
Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive license terms and 
intentional incompatibilities.
    (2) The PFJ contains overly narrow definitions--for example A) 
it forces Microsoft to publish its secret API's, but defines API so 
narrowly that Microsoft will be able to avoid disclosure B) it 
allows users to replace Microsoft middleware with competing 
middleware but defines ``middleware'' so narrowly that the next 
version of Windows may not be covered at all. C) The PFJ does not 
cover Microsoft .NET--it allows users to replace Microsoft Java with 
a competing product but Microsoft is phasing Java out in favor of 
.NET. D) The PFJ requires Microsoft to release the API information 
but prohibits competitors from using it to develop operating systems 
that are compatible with Windows (and thus could compete with 
Windows).
    (3) The PFJ does not prohibit Anticompetitive licensing terms 
currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft's enterprise licensing scheme 
still has large companies paying per machine that *could* run 
Windows instead of those that do--this type of licensing is similar 
to those banned by the 1994 consent decree. Microsoft's licensing 
also restricts vendors from installing other competing operating 
systems to operate side-by-side with Windows.
    (4) The PFJ as written does not contain an effective enforcement 
mechanism.
    I believe that the PFJ should not be adopted without substantial 
revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Fredericks 4773 Tapestry Dr
    Fairfax, VA 22032



MTC-00015482

From: Robert Bushman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:13am
Subject: Opposed to Proposed Settlement
    Dear Sir or Ma'am;
    I do not support Microsoft's proposed settlement because I do 
not think it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's 
offenses, nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the 
same in the future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing an abusive 
monopoly by requiring them to extend their monopoly into the US 
educational system is incomprehensible.
    Much has been said of finding a win/win solution. This ignores 
the fact that Microsoft broke the law and is supposed to be 
punished. They are not supposed to win.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Robert Bushman
    Senior Software Engineer
    Apollo Group, Inc.
    Research and Development Department
    The opinions expressed herein are mine and may or may not 
reflect the opinions of Apollo Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries.



MTC-00015483

From: Duane Gustavus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DoJ:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is fatally flawed and 
will not accomplish any useful modification of Microsoft's behavior. 
The evidence mounts that government, and especially the Department 
of Justice, is loosing credibility with the public. Please do not 
participate in actions that will be viewed in the light of history 
as government complicity with what were once termed ``racketeers''. 
Microsoft has already been found guilty. Please do the duty you ask 
us to do every time we serve on a jury.
    Duane Gustavus
    1223 Panhandle St.
    Denton, TX 76210
    [email protected]



MTC-00015484

From: Robert Petrusz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I have been reading about the progress of the motions against 
Microsoft in the press in recent days and am alarmed by what appears 
to be the softening stance of the courts with respect to Microsoft's 
viciously anti-competitive behavior. I have been working in the 
Information Technology industry for several years. Everyday I 
experience first-hand the disruptive and destructive consequences of 
Microsoft's aggressive behavior in the form of poor perfomance of

[[Page 26098]]

Microsoft products that are protected from serious competition from 
viable alternative products.
    Now I see the grim prospect of Microsoft going unpunished in a 
substantive way for their transgressions. I hope that at the end of 
the day, the justice department will find a way to restrain 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior and establish a ``level 
playing field'' in the highly competitive computer industry.
    Regards,
    Robert Petrusz
    Technical Support Center
    Fuqua School of Business
    Duke University



MTC-00015485

From: Nick Allen
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Nick Allen
    IT Engineer
    Ohio State Bar Association
    (letter c/o grylnsmn)



MTC-00015486

From: Scott Russell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Russell
Orr's Island, ME
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and The Department of Justice
    I am an American citizen with over 17 years of experience in 
software development.
    The current Microsoft settlement is inadequate to improve the 
competitive environment in the software industry. Microsoft holds 
and has enforced a monopoly on the desktop computer market, and this 
settlement does not provide sufficient penalty for these misdeeds. 
Microsoft has failed to abide by the spirit of previous agreements. 
Providing an oversight committee, but no provision for the ability 
to penalize Microsoft represents a weak settlement--one that does 
not protect the consumer or the non-monopolists in this market. This 
settlement provides inroads for Microsoft to continue to undermine 
both the software industry in general, and the Free Software 
movement in particular. In the past, Microsoft has been found to 
mislead its customers and vendors, the public, and the courts. 
Logically, we should consider that it may continue to do so now, and 
will probably do so again the future.
    Marketing statements notwithstanding, innovation does not come 
from forcing a stranglehold on the citizens of the world. It emerges 
from the free exchange of ideas among organizations as peers. There 
is nothing wrong with pure competition or free capitalism, and I 
support both. Imposing operating constraints on an organization 
should only come into affect when the organization steps outside of 
the standards of Society and Law. The global community, and 
Americans in particular, expect a degree of ethical behavior on the 
part of corporations--The Sherman Act was created to provide 
recourse to address those situations in which an entity steps 
outside of the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
    Microsoft has crossed this well-defined line, and should suffer 
a tangible penalty for past misdeeds, the disastrous effects of 
which are ongoing, and will continue for years. A mechanism for 
preventing and penalizing attempts at future misdeeds must also be 
part of this remedy. One who violates the law should not be allowed 
to keep his ill-gotten gains. The court has found that Microsoft has 
engaged in activity that is in violation of civil law, by 
maintaining and extending an illegal monopoly. Microsoft committed 
these illegal acts with the successful intention of taking money 
from consumers, competitors, and vendors. The current settlement 
allows them to keep these gains, which would be measured in billions 
of dollars. Some solid process must be put into place to ensure that 
this money, if not returned to those it was taken from, will be used 
to recover from the damage caused by the illegal actions of this 
monopolist. Negative impacts upon the economy and technology 
innovation should not be a reason to prevent a harsh judgment in 
this case. The impact of a tumble in Microsoft's stock price on the 
world economy will be offset by the rise of independent software 
vendors, once they are free of the tyranny of a sitting monopolist. 
Technology will become more valuable, stable, and secure as more 
worthy organizations begin to set the pace for this field. Allowing 
a single organization to have such a strong hand in the survival of 
a market, and the nation's economy in general must be stopped. It's 
a simple fact-- the tech industry would do better and recover faster 
without Microsoft controlling its interests. Applying reimbursement 
and punitive damages to Microsoft serves the national interest--not 
doing so serves only Microsoft's interests.
    I wish to give a few guidelines to help define what would 
constitute a fair remedy:
    Prevention of Recurrence--Microsoft must not be allowed to 
continue to abuse or enforce its monopoly. Reimbursement--Microsoft 
must not be allowed to retain the profits it has earned as a result 
of its illegal actions.
    Reparations--Microsoft is responsible for the current 
uncompetitive market in operating systems and related applications. 
The should be forced to underwrite efforts to restore competition 
and consumer choice. Damages--Microsoft must pay punitive damages 
over and above its reimbursement and reparative obligations, both as 
punishment for wrongdoing, and to deter future monopolists.
    The existing settlement serves to grant Microsoft it's monopoly, 
and will cause additional damage to many, many industries. It will 
also ensure that there will be more cases of United States Vs 
Microsoft in the future, costing more money to taxpayers.
    Thank you for your time, cott Russell



MTC-00015487

From: Harry Dellicker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am very concerned about the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. PLEASE do not let Microsoft ``off the 
hook'' with a simple slap of the hand. This company has been playing 
dirty for years now. I am totally incensed about their tactics used 
in squashing Netscape. The Netscape browser is a good piece of 
software (unlike that security nightmare MS calls Internet 
Explorer). I believe Netscape could have remained a viable company 
had it not been for the illegal tactics of Microsoft.
    Having been emboldened by the weak response of the government, 
Microsoft's latest bombshell is a new subscription software scheme 
whereby they will require companies to pay an annual subscription 
cost of 29% of the original purchase price of their software 
licenses. If they choose not to participate, future upgrades will 
not be possible; they will have to buy all NEW licenses any time 
they want to ``upgrade''. In the past we have been able to purchase 
upgrades at a reduced, upgrade price if and when we felt like it. 
This is extortion, pure and simple. Microsoft thinks they can get 
away with it simply because they are virtually the only game in 
town.
    Microsoft has also been guilty for years of putting out poor 
quality software with little concern for security. We all pay for 
this every time there is another virus attack which takes advantage 
of yet another Microsoft software coding error. Please, Microsoft 
needs more accountability; not less. We need a judgment against 
Microsoft which is truly meaningful.
    Sincerely,
    Harry Dellicker
    Covington, WA
    P.S. While I am at it, we also need to change the laws so that 
companies can sue a software vendor for damages which can be 
directly attributed to negligence on the part of the software 
vendor. Only then will these companies start taking security 
seriously.

[[Page 26099]]

    Yes, I know about Mr. Gate's new security initiative. I will 
believe it when I see it. And of course, if and when they have 
something ready, I'm sure they will be happy to $ELL it to us.



MTC-00015488

From: Dan Larsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Dan Larsen
    Software Developer
    Invision Software, Inc.
    110 Lake Ave. South Suite 35
    Nesconset, NY 11767
    631-360-3400 x124
    631-360-3268 fax



MTC-00015489

From: Brian M. Fisher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is an 
extremely bad idea and probably would be the largest miscarriage of 
justice that this country has ever seen.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Fisher
    Brian M. Fisher
    Dept Physics and Astronomy
    Univ North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255



MTC-00015490

From: Chris Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to address the Propossed Final Judgment by saying 
that I feel that as it currently stands, it would not diminish the 
barrier to entry for Intel/x86-Compatible PC operating systems to 
compete with Windows. Much software that I use and maintain for my 
employment as a systems administrator is Free and Open Source 
Software which is clearly discriminated against by Microsoft and is 
not addressed in the Propossed Final Judgment.
    I depend on software that must interoperate with Microsoft 
Windows Operating Systems. The developers of the software cannot 
fully interoperate with a Windows System unless Security APIs are 
available. By allowing Microsoft to keep document formats (an API) 
and Security APIs secret for their systems, competing operating 
systems, server software, and applications cannot interact 
effectively with Windows Operating Systems or compete against 
Microsoft Products. I find that this is a fatal flaw in the 
Propossed Final Judgment and allows Microsoft to continue in their 
arrogant, heavy handed business practices.
    In short, I feel that the Final Judgment is a step in the right 
direction, however, it is nowhere near complete. This judgement, as 
it currently stands, is not in the public interest.
    Chris Edwards
    Abingdon, Virginia



MTC-00015491

From: Jeremy Gilbert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to urge you to be harsh with Microsoft. Go for the 
kill. Either fine them no less than their entire cash reserve ($62 
Billion at last count) or break them into no less than 5 pieces. (1. 
consumer operating systems 2. office productivity 3. enterprise 
operating systems 4. web server 5. database server) Their anti-
competitive practices have hurt the software and computing industry 
more than could ever be known. The prices we pay for software from 
them (well, you pay, I stopped buying) is analogous to paying 
upwards of $15.00 for a gallon of gas from Standard Oil. Free 
software is available that competes with all of their products, yet 
through either buying out their competitors or marketing them to 
death, consumers either no longer have a choice or don't know about 
their choices. Don't be soft with them. They have been found to be 
in violation of anti trust law, so now is not the time for weak 
settlements.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Gilbert



MTC-00015492

From: Andrew Whitcroft
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam--
    I am writing to let you know that I think the proposed Microsoft 
settlement is a BAD idea. This proposed settlement is no more than a 
token punishment for Microsoft! Please do NOT allow this monopolist 
to continue their predatory practices. It is important that the 
software industry be allow to be creative and innovative, without 
fear that the 800 pound gorilla (IE. Microsoft) will squish them 
into non-existence!
    I believe that Judge Penfield's finding are correct, and that 
anything less than the strongest possible penalty allowed by law, 
will be meaningless to Microsoft.
    Thank you for time in this matter,
    Andrew Whitcroft



MTC-00015493

From: Robert Del Huerto
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement with Microsoft. It 
does not do enough to prevent Microsoft from continuing its 
anticompetitive actions. Please contact me if you should need 
further comment.
    Thanking you in advance,
    Robert Del Huerto
    MIS Coordinator
    Laredo, TX



MTC-00015494

From: Jeremy Hise
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please demonstrate that the US government can't be bought by 
corporate America! Or is it too late? :



MTC-00015495

From: Chris Worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Ma'am,
    I find the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement to be just 
short of an apology to Microsoft.
    It will do nothing to stop their anticompetitive behavior. It 
will do nothing to spur competition in the software industry. It 
gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue to run roughshod over 
consumers and competition.
    The media has well documented that every key provision in this 
settlement has an ``opt out'' loophole that allows Microsoft to 
continue it's anticompetitive behaviors.
    The future of high technology is at stake. If you allow 
Microsoft to remain unchecked, then we are entering a new ``dark 
ages'' where a small minority will control the information vital to 
innovation. The part of the proposal I'm most concerned with is the 
``security'' ``opt out'' in the ``open protocols'' section... 
``Security'' has become a buzzword associated with terrorist acts, 
allowing Microsoft to portray competing vendor's software 
compatibility with authentication software as an act of treason. 
It's just not so. ``Security through obscurity'' has never stopped 
hackers with ill intent, it only keeps those being attacked ``in the 
dark''. It's much like human viri: we want to know what can infect 
us, how to keep from getting infected, how to detect the infection, 
and how to stop the infection (even if it can't be stopped). This 
information is key to our longevity. For example, the recent anthrax 
terrorist acts have shown that public information is critical to 
detection and cure, and the lack of information led to unnecessary 
infection (of postal workers) and panic among the uninfected, and 
did nothing to stop the perpetrator.
    Software viri/worms require the same publicity to protect and 
inform the population.
    I'm afraid Microsoft has negotiated this loophole in the 
settlement for a reason other than protecting consumers: they're 
stopping compatible products from competing under the guise of 
stopping terrorism. For example, a software package called ``Samba'' 
competes with Microsoft
    NT file servers: file servers compatible with the protocols that 
provide you with your ``network neighborhood''. If Microsoft can 
hide the authentication protocol, then the competing file server 
software can't compete: if you have to have an NT server to 
authenticate users, then you might as well

[[Page 26100]]

use that server to serve files and not use Samba at all (IT 
departments, in order to simplify their task, would prefer not to 
run servers with different OSes). For Samba to compete, it must be 
able to perform all the necessary protocols for Microsoft's network 
file services. It's all or nothing; it does consumers and 
competition no good for only part of the protocol to be published. 
This is similar to their behavior with API's. By not exposing key OS 
interfaces, they've been able to create special ``hooks'' into the 
OS that only their applications can use, allowing their applications 
to have features that the competition can't have. It's the same old 
trick with a new twist, under the guise of ``protecting consumers''. 
This settlement is a ruse. It's a trap. And, the DOJ seems overly 
willing to fall for it, to the detriment of competition and 
consumers.
    Chris Worley
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00015496

From: Bob Ramsey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Let me begin by saying that I am appalled that any court would 
seriously consider Microsoft's proposed settlement. There are two 
main flaws with the ``operating systems for schools'' proposal. 
First is the way Microsoft will lie about the amount of money that 
it donates. Take for example a license for Office XP Professional. 
The Full Retail Price for this product according to Microsoft is 480 
dollars. But the educational price that is paid by schools and 
students is only $200. So Microsoft will claim that it is donating 
software worth 2.5 times as much as it would cost for a school to 
purchase, thus making the court and the Department of Justice look 
like fools for believing Microsoft. Again. And this does not take 
into account the discounts that are available with multiple 
purchases.
    Second is the fact that this ``punishment'' will enable 
Microsoft to push its products deeper into the one niche market 
where there is still a viable competitor, Apple Computers. Apple has 
consistently courted the educational market better than Microsoft. A 
``punishment'' of the sort outlined by Microsoft would enable them 
to oust their nearest competitor. Microsoft has broken the law. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking the law. These are often 
two different things, so I want to emphasize that point. They are 
guilty and they have been found by a court of law to be guilty. They 
must be punished.
    One potential way to punish them is to force them to take 
returns on their operating systems. It is impossible to buy a 
computer from a major OEM (like Gateway, Dell, Compaq, HP, etc.) 
without purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows. And yet I never, not 
once, use that software. I format the hard drive and install Linux. 
I do not open the shrinkwrap, I do not accept the license of the 
Microsoft Operating System and I do not use it. And yet I can not, 
as it says on the license, return the software. Microsoft will not 
accept it because I bought the computer from Gateway. Gateway will 
not accept it because it is Microsoft software. As one part of their 
punishment, I would force Microsoft to accept unopened OEM versions 
of their products.
    I am sure you will hear many suggestions for punishing 
Microsoft, so I will limit my suggestions to the one above. There 
are many other good suggestions though, and I hope someone at the 
Justice Department does some justice. It's about time.
    Bob Ramsey Computer Consultant II
    ph: 1(319)335-9956 216 Boyd Law Building
    fax: 1(319)335-9019 University of Iowa College of Law
    mailto:[email protected] Iowa City, IA 52242-1113
    For Hardware and Software questions, call 5-9124



MTC-00015497

From: Nick Walter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to comment that the proposed settlements do not in any 
way seem to provide any incentive for Microsoft to modify it's 
behavior or begin competing fairly. They still have closed API's, 
they can still use their monopoly position to leverage into new 
monopolies in related markets.
    Nick Walter
    Interact Incorporated
    +1 402 476 8786 ext 365



MTC-00015498

From: Steve Domenico
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the Microsoft settlement is bad news for consumers and 
competition.
    Thank you,
    Steve Domenico
    1409 Courtesy Road
    Louisville, CO 80027
    [email protected]



MTC-00015499

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express great dismay with the proposed federal 
settlement of the Microsoft antitrust trial. Past behavior is a good 
indicator of future intentions, and Microsoft was sanctioned in the 
past for poor behavior and monopoly abuses. The sanctions did not 
achieve the goal of preventing the current round of offenses. This 
latest settlement is even worse. It practically encourages new 
abuses. The proposed settlement is INADEQUATE and UNJUST.
    Without a substantial disincentive to further abuses, a public 
corporation (chartered to maximize shareholder value and net 
profits) is inexorably going to be pushed towards leveraging its 
monopoly or monopolies to prevent competition from eroding revenues. 
This is very simple. The only way to avoid a repeat performance is 
to encourage compliance via far-reaching consequences for breach, 
such as forced publication of APIs and source code for products 
found to be used to violate antitrust statutes. It's hard to shoot a 
man without a bullet; it is difficult to leverage a monopoly without 
a product to do so. I would like to suggest some alternatives to 
strengthen the settlement. Internet Explorer was ``integrated'' in a 
spurious and demonstrably false fashion; Spyglass Software was thus 
deprived of millions of dollars in licensing revenue, despite proof 
that their licensed product (rebadged as Internet Explorer) was 
separable from the Windows operating system. This demands punitive 
action: repackaging of IE as a separate product. Also, the abusive 
licensing practices of Microsoft will not be ended by the proposed 
settlement. OEMs will be crushed by other avenues if they defy 
Microsoft, as has been the case in the past. Given the near-total 
monopoly held by Microsoft in this market, ALL OEM RESTRICTIONS 
OTHER THAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STIPULATIONS should be held as null 
and void in future Windows Operating System EULAs. Finally, all APIs 
for operating system functions that interact with other computers on 
a network or workgroup should be made public, and that public 
documentation enforced by law, with penalties for non-compliance 
including full publication of the relevant source code in the event 
of a deliberate obfuscation or non-publication. Perhaps then, 
stiffer competition will push the entirety of computing forward at a 
faster pace, and if Microsoft truly is worthy of being the largest 
and most powerful company in the field, we shall witness this as a 
result of innovation and invention, rather than illegal stifling of 
competing technologies (often those with the greatest promise for 
all). I do not begrudge Microsoft their success; I begrudge them 
breaking the law and receiving a slap on the wrists (AGAIN!) as 
punishment.
    Yours truly,
    Tim Triche
    1233 Maryland Avenue, NE
    Washington, DC, 20002



MTC-00015500

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been following with dismay the Microsoft antitrust case 
and think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. The United States 
Government was originally a protector of the people but has 
increasingly been moving towards keeping corporations happy and 
prosperous. Consider this tax-paying, voting consumer unhappy.
    Regards,
    William L. Riley
    [email protected]



MTC-00015501

From: Ben Loftis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.

[[Page 26101]]

    Ben Loftis
    301 Honey Ct
    Nolensville, TN 37013



MTC-00015502

From: Mike Bush
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I have a number of disagreements with the proposed settlement, 
but one in particular I find unacceptable is the definition of 
``Timely Manner''. In my opinion, delaying the release of what will 
most likely be critical and complicated API information to 
competitors until after Microsoft has had the opportunity to expose 
their product to more than 150,000 potential customers is not being 
competitive. I believe new API information should be provided to 
Microsoft's competitors much earlier in the development cycle, and 
an ongoing flow of information regarding API changes and additions 
should be established.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Michael Bush
    4141 N. Henderson Rd. #1018
    Arlington, VA 22203
    [email protected]



MTC-00015503

From: Sebbo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs--
    As a former user of the now-defunct Be Operating System(BeOS), I 
was very unhappy that Microsoft was able to abuse its influence on 
OEMs to prevent my being able to purchase a computer with BeOS 
preinstalled. This blatant supression of competition clearly stifles 
trade and prevents innovation.
    Microsoft should be banned from making *any* deals with OEMs 
that stipulate behavior not directly related to their software. 
Given Microsoft's record of attempting to violate or circumvent 
previous such restrictions, the full text of all Microsoft OEM 
agreements should be publicly available.
    Yours,
    Sebastian Banker



MTC-00015504

From: Ian Callum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the Microsoft settlement because I believe it does not 
do enough to prevent Microsoft from using its dominant position in 
the OS to put competitors out of business. Look at what they tried 
to do to Kodak recently. Microsoft originally set up XP so that 
Kodak digital camera software would not run under XP. Only after 
Kodak threatened suit did Microsoft back down. Kodak is a large 
company with legal resources at their disposal, so they are able to 
fight back against this illegal behavior, but smaller companies 
might not have that option. Microsoft have behaved like gangsters, 
using extortion and intimidation to destroy business rivals. They 
cannot be allowed to continue in this manner, and the settlement 
does little to rein in their criminal behavior.
    Yours,
    Ian W. Callum



MTC-00015505

From: Ryan Roehrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to write in my support against Microsoft in your 
case against them. In my opinion the US Government has gone way to 
soft on Microsoft. As we progress as a country, one of the things we 
need to do to stay on top it to keep developing our technologies so 
they are better than any other. Microsoft stands in the way of this 
by having a monopoly and using that monopoly to stifle competition 
in any way possible. Many businesses have had to close because of 
Microsoft's monopoly. Some of these businesses could have come up 
with advances in the field that make sure the US is still ahead of 
everyone else but are now unable to do that. On a personal note, I 
am employed as a Unix Administrator. If Microsoft had their way my 
job, which I have stuck years of training into to, would be 
eliminated. I have a wife and 2 young children that depend on me 
solely for financial support. Why should one company, because of 
their monopoly, have a say on wether I will have a job in the 
future?
    Please think and decide with common sense on this issue, not 
political donations and lobbyists. Thank you.
    Ryan Roehrich
    14224 Patrick Ave
    Omaha NE 68164



MTC-00015506

From: George, Mark
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a Computer Programmer for the last 10 years and I do 
NOT agree with the settlement proposed by the Justice Department. It 
is too soft on the Microsoft behemoth that they are. Plus, the 
``punishment'' is not immediate, Microsoft gets one year to 
``modify'' their behavior after this is approved. They have had 5 
years to ``modify'' their behavior. Here is how I see it.....
    If I were to start burning down our forests...and we have laws 
protecting our forest. I still burn it anyways. The Justice Dept. 
comes in and says ``Stop!'' But I say, I am behaving normally, I 
should be able to burn all I want. I am going to appeal this law of 
burning down trees. And while I drag the justice system through the 
courts for 3+ years, I am still going to burn down the forests. So, 
after years and years of burning the forest down, and proof that I 
was acting illegally....I reach an agreement with the Justice Dept. 
I am no longer allowed to use matches (after one year of reaching 
the agreement). I pay no fines, I don't have to replant the forest, 
the lives that were involved with the forest burning....nothing.
    Jalute
    Mark George
    Application Developer
    St. Petersburg, Florida



MTC-00015508

From: hal King
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I stand against the Microsoft settlement. It allows Microsoft to 
police themselves. After the recent Enron mess, the DOJ can not sit 
by without acting in the public good. Microsoft's cost of software 
it claims to be donating is zero! All it will cost them is the price 
of the packaging. Also by ``donating'' their software, they are in 
fact marketing to children.
    Please do not let Microsoft get away without punishment.
    Hal King
    Unix System Group / The University of Tennessee at Knoxville
    pgp key http://web.utk.edu/hck/hal.asc



MTC-00015509

From: Tony Beauregard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would respectfully like to suggest that the public and the 
country are not served by the current proposed settlement to the 
Microsoft Antitrust trial.
    The restrictions put on Microsoft to stop a repeat of the events 
that have led up to this trial are insufficient and easily 
circumvented by a company of their size.
    Please reconsider and find a settlement that will help the 
consumer and the industry.
    Thank you,
    Tony Beauregard
    San Antonio, Texas
    Manager, Software Development Center



MTC-00015510

From: Josh Wills
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I am a a software engineer for the IBM Corporation. In addition 
to the work I do for IBM, I also work in my free time on several 
different open source software projects. I am writing you today to 
comment on the settlement agreement the DOJ has reached with 
Microsoft.
    As you know, IBM is one of the OEMs that uses Microsoft's 
operating system in the computers we manufacture. IBM is also one of 
the leading proponents of the Linux operating system, an open source 
alternative to Microsoft on the x86 hardware platform. My concerns 
with the Microsoft settlement revolve around three fundamental 
issues: Microsoft's relationship with OEMs, the availability to ISVs 
of Microsoft's APIs, and the enforcement of this settlement.
    There are alternatives to the Windows operating system, and the 
settlement needs to take into account the fact that OEMs must have 
the right to ship computers that do not contain any copy of Windows. 
Please amend section III.A.2 with this option, so as to prevent 
Microsoft from including this in their contracts with OEMs.
    Microsoft's APIs should be fully standardized, documented, and 
available to

[[Page 26102]]

the public. The ONLY party that benefits from Microsoft's ability to 
evaluate the ``business plan'' of companies that seek access to the 
APIs is Microsoft. It will enable them to control the market for 
software for years in the future by dragging their feet in 
evaluating companies, or dismissing requests for access to the APIs 
for spurious reasons. I do not see this option as punishing 
Microsoft as much as it benefits consumers, who would finally get 
the competitive market for software that they so richly deserve. 
Releasing the APIs to the public would create an intellectual 
property commons that would spur a new era of development and 
creativity in the software industry, much as the Internet did, with 
the consumer as the beneficiary.
    I strongly feel that Microsoft should have no say in who 
oversees it during its punishment. Microsoft, as a repeat offender 
and unrepented monopolist, has lost that right. I strongly suggest 
that the court appoint a single ``Master'' who can manage and assist 
the court with overseeing Microsoft. Placing control in a single 
authority, chosen by and responsible to the court, is the only way 
that we can even remotely ensure that Microsoft complies with the 
remedies proposed in the settlement.
    I thank you very much for your time, and I pray that wisdom and 
the spirit of justice will guide you into making a decision that 
properly benefits all of the victims of Microsoft's monopoly.
    Sincerely yours,
    Josh Wills
    12440 Alameda Trace Circle #2031
    Austin, TX 78727
    The threads of circumstance that lead to tomorrow are so tenuous 
that all the fussing and worrying about decisions is futile compared 
to the pure randomness of existence.
    -Nick Bantock



MTC-00015511

From: Bryan Ericson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam
    The settlement proposed by Microsoft in its recent dealings with 
the U.S. Dept. of Justice is insufficient punishment. If allowed, it 
will only further Microsoft's monopoly, and will not in any way 
remedy the harm it has caused to the marketplace and to consumers. I 
believe a proper remedy involves requiring Microsoft to make public 
some of its closed standards. I refer you to the following URL as a 
fair proposal for a proper remedy: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
microsoft-antitrust.html
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Ericson



MTC-00015512

From: Carl Marshall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Instead of spewing forth the same arguments that have been 
thrown back and forth before, just let me say I'm opposed to this 
anemic settlement the DOJ has proposed.
    Carl Marshall
    Madison, TN 37115



MTC-00015513

From: Jeffrey Quinn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    Following September 11th I have pondered much over my status as 
an American Citizen. For the sake of brevity, allow me to state that 
there are many aspects of this country that I truely love, but also 
many that I find inappropriate. This settlement is one of them. It 
is repulsive to me that a company, by using backhanded and even 
immoral means, should be allowed to continue without so much as a 
slap on the wrist. If justice here fails, then we shall only prove 
that money buys everything; even justice, and our ideals of truth 
and freedom are compromised. I for one do not wish to live in the 
United States of Microsoft, or the United States of any other 
megacorporation.
    The real trial isn't about a browser, or an oversized, 
gargantuan company. The real trial is about the freedom to innovate 
and freedom from control If innovators are restricted to what 
Microsoft dictates, then we shall have no real innovation. It is my 
hope that there are better, stronger things in this world than 
greed. I have seen that in the open source movement, and such things 
bring peace to my heart. Please don't let greed be rewarded any 
longer, and let justice be searved as it should be: with an open, 
objective mind and not wallet.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Quinn



MTC-00015514

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Microsoft currently has a stranglehold on the current computing 
market which is limiting the end user's choices. I have been in the 
computing industry for a mere seven years but in that time I have 
seen several Operating systems start their decline.
    Apple: Once very prominent and competitive, they now have little 
presence in the world. While this is partly their fault due to their 
business model, it is at such a point now that should Apple ever 
decide to change their marketing, they would be completely and 
utterly ``wiped out''. Netscape: What was once the most popular 
browser anywhere is now virtually NON-EXISTANT due to microsofts, 
``bundling'' tactics. Novell: What was one of the worlds most 
reliable, stable, and popular network operating systems has nearly 
disappeared in my area. Microsoft has everyone believing that they 
have a better product. The only reason their product can be 
considered ``better'' is because their software will only run on 
Windows forcing people who may want to use some of their other 
products into using their less than par OS to run their networks. 
I've worked with Novell for 5 of those seven years, right along side 
of windows. The two compliment each other very well, but from a 
standpoint of stability and security, Novell was far above and 
beyond the level that Microsoft is currently at 5 years ago.
    Microsoft has proven time and time again, that nothing is their 
own. Windows was TAKEN from Apple/(Xerox), Active Directory Services 
was BORROWED from Novell's Directory Services, and C#/.Net was 
copied from Sun's Java and J2EE standards.
    One has only to look at the source code for Java and C# to see 
that it is technicalogical PLAGIARISM. We do not stand for 
PLAGIARISM anywhere else in the business world, why should we on 
technology?
    One has only to setup and administer NDS (Novell Directory 
Services)and ADS (Active Direcotry Service) to see that what 
Microsoft has come up with for a network structure as ``new 
technology'' has been around since 1995!! And finally, lets be 
honest with ourselves, if it wasn't for Steve Jobs and Apple, would 
the world even know what a GUI (grahpical user interface) is? I can 
tell you, that working in the environment even this short period of 
time, Micosoft has proven its inferiority to me over and over again. 
My current environment sees its Windows servers crash 50 to 1 when 
compared to Netware and that statistic has even a larger gap when 
compared to our Unix servers.
    In conclusion, if Microsoft is allowed to continue down its 
current path, the Corporate world as well as the common public would 
not only be subject to inflated prices, but inflated prices for a 
lesser quality products. The american dream? I don't think so. 
Perhaps if Microsoft were at least forced to develop their software 
for multiple platforms (not just MSOffice, but networking solutions 
as well), there will still be some freedom of choice left over at 
the end of this road.



MTC-00015515

From: Derek Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear People,
    I am extremely disturbed by the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case. I have may concerns about the current and 
future behavior of Microsoft which I do not believe will be 
addressed by this settlement.
    My primary concern is the monopoly position that Microsoft is 
seeking to garner in the sphere of network services. This monopoly 
position is being obtained through the ``innovation'' of including 
client services as part of the XP operating system that work only 
with Microsoft servers and services. The protocols used by Microsoft 
are proprietary, and predatory in nature and do not seek to allow 
developers to innovate themselves. This, in addition to Microsoft's 
extremely poor security and system uptime record, especially 
recently, should serve to warn us all that our abilities to purchase 
products, exchange information and to be secure in the knowledge 
that our personnel records are kept private are all at risk, This 
goes directly to Antitrust as much as monopolizing rail lines or 
airline routes, it will impede our economy to a large extent, and 
allow other nations, who are taking a more reasoned

[[Page 26103]]

approach to Microsoft, to prosper while the United States becomes 
captive to a Microsoft run internet. The proposed settlement will 
not impede Microsoft's ability to acquire and abuse a monopoly on 
internet services.
    Other systems and protocols have been built, deployed and tested 
for years. These protocols started with an emphasis on security from 
their inception, and are currently the favored protocols used by a 
large percentage of developers. In addition, these systems and 
protocols continue to be developed in a open standards based fashion 
which receives inputs from many sources. Many of these systems are 
already being encouraged by other nations, including the purchasing 
of non-Microsoft operating systems by universities, corporations, 
and the governments of these nations. This allows these nations to 
use the already existing secure and safe protocols that are in 
place. Allowing Microsoft to continue ``innovating'' and crushing 
other technologies by ``integrating'' these services into the 
operating system itself (considered poor practice by developers not 
in the employ of Microsoft) will put the United States at a distinct 
economic disadvantage. It is interesting to note that many of the 
secure operating systems are a fraction of the cost of Microsoft 
operating systems and allow organizations to spend IT resources on 
additional services and hardware, further improving the 
technological capacity of the economies in which these operating 
systems are deployed. Please take a more reasoned and rational 
approach to the Microsoft Antitrust settlement. Our Nation's economy 
and Security is at stake, Microsoft's prosperity is not.
    Sincerely,
    Derek J. Williams
    IT Director
    RLE Technologies
    208 Commerce Drive
    Fort Collins, CO 80524
    www.rletech.com
    President
    Mountain Online Monitoring
    416 Peterson St.
    Fort Collins, CO 80524
    www.mountainmonitoring.com



MTC-00015516

From: Jadrian Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern (and the outcome of this case concerns 
everyone in America who touches a computer, so listen up!)...
    Microsoft's business practices are hurting the field of computer 
software. Their monopolistic practices should be stopped before the 
entire e-public is drawn completely into their unfair business 
practices. Don't let Microsoft victor again over the rest of us.
    Jadrian Johnson



MTC-00015517

From: Mark W Brehob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Why I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft should not 
be allowed to go forward: The settlement doesn't force the company 
to stop doing actions that eight federal judges found illegal. It 
provides no real penalty for the illegal acts. Telling Microsoft to 
``play fair'' has never worked in the past.
    Giving computer makers more freedom --is-- a useful result. A 
few weeks ago I ordered a computer from Dell. I wanted a machine 
which either ran Linux or Windows 2000. They did sell a Linux box, 
but not in a useful configuration for my purposes. They had exactly 
zero Windows 2000 boxes. XP is buggy and not yet supported by my 
workplace (due to security concerns) but I had to buy XP anyways. 
I'll need to install an older version of windows on top of that.
    But even so, Microsoft must be punished for their illegal 
actions, otherwise others will feel free to ignore anti-trust laws. 
I personally would suggest a --large-- fine (20+ billion) and that 
most of that money be used to fund open source software 
development--Microsoft's largest competitor. I'm certain a non-
profit organization could be formed to do just that.
    A small wrist slap, and a mumbled promise from Microsoft not to 
sin again is clearly insufficient.
    Thank you,
    Mark Brehob
    Lecturer in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
    University of Michigan
    Ann Arbor Michigan



MTC-00015518

From: Nathan Neulinger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My view on the settlement is very simple--microsoft's practices 
have prevented me as an independent developer from writing software 
that can either compete or interoperate with servers that they have 
written. The settlement does nothing to help this, and in fact, 
seems to legitimize MS's discrimination against non-microsoft 
products. Any solution/settlement/etc. that provides less that the 
capability for full interoperability (i.e. FULL documentation of ALL 
microsoft network protocols) is worthless to me.
    I'd also agree with the requirement for full documentation of 
any microsoft file formats. And please don't fall for the ``We're 
changing the format to XML nonsense'', cause microsofts idea of 
changing the file format's to XML looks something like this:
Old Format:
    Beginning of File:
    UNDOCUMENTED--BINARY--BLOB
    End of File:
New XML Format:
    Beginning of File: OfficeDoc Version=XP>UNDOCUMENTED--BINARY--
BLOB/OfficeDoc>
    End Of File:
    Sure, it's completely legal XML, it's also completely worthless 
since you can't use it.
    I am a Systems Administrator for the University of Missouri--
Rolla, and while we are a significant microsoft campus, that does 
not mean we are happy with the situation. We are CONSTANTLY having 
to develop nasty workarounds to microsoft interoperability problems 
because we also have a sizable Unix (HP, Sun, and Linux) 
infrastructure. I'd hope that whatever solution y'all come up with 
makes it clear that Microsoft cannot discriminate against free and 
open-source software just because they are a competitor.
    --Nathan Neulinger
    EMail: [email protected]
    University of Missouri--Rolla
    Phone: (573) 341-4841
    Computing Services
    Fax: (573) 341-4216



MTC-00015519

From: Darien Graham-Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a US citizen; but Microsoft's behaviour affects the 
British IT industry just as directly as it does the domestic market. 
I write therefore in hope of registering my belief that the proposed 
action against Microsoft is nowhere near sufficient to restore 
balanced competition to the IT marketplace, either in the US or 
further afield.
    Sincerely,
    Darien Graham-Smith MA (Cantab.)
    103a Melfort Road
    Thornton Heath
    Surrey CR7 7RX
    ENGLAND



MTC-00015520

From: David Jacques
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a computer professional for over 15 years. What I 
have heard as to the proposed settlement of this case is absurd. 
Punishing Microsoft by allowing them to ``donate'' their software to 
schools and thus reinforcing their monopoly is unjustifiable. To me 
this smack of the government being corrupt. I have a very hard time 
believing that you think we are so stupid as to think this concept 
is a remedy. Therefore I just have to assume that somebody is 
getting paid off and does not care how bad it all looks. I had a 
glimmer of hope that the government worked when microsoft was found 
guilty of being a predatory monopoly. I have had to give away 
hundreds of hours of free technical support because of this terrible 
company. I have watched dozens of companies be destroyed by their 
tactics. Every time I have bought a computer I have had to 
contribute to their war chest. Do the right thing please the thought 
of living in MS/America whose capital is MS/Washington B.G. (``bill 
gates'') turns my stomach but that is what you seem to be wanting. 
History will remember this decision and those who made it. 
Rockefeller would own this country if our government had not acted 
properly. Now it is your turn.



MTC-00015521

From: Daniel Hauck
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:25am
Subject: my vote

[[Page 26104]]

    I am not in favor of current actions and reactions. Many times 
our government has been forced to intervene on the public interest's 
behalf over that of major corporate interests. It is part of the 
government's constitutional duty to enforce its own laws on behalf 
of its people. It is part of the government's constitutional duty to 
promote the general welfare. Microsoft had been judged already. 
Through their actions, past, present and PLANNED FUTURE actions, 
they are breaking current law. As such, I feel they are not only 
responsible to the public, but responsible criminally and in 
contempt of court as they have failed to cease many such practices 
as stated in various summaries. (Imagine a court's reaction if I 
were guilty of some form of electronic fraud and yet to be sentenced 
only to find that I continued to operate in the same manner in spite 
of the fact that I have been found criminally guilty?) Microsoft's 
impunity speaks volumes suggesting that this giant is out of control 
and simply requires major reconstruction to prevent it from ever 
happening. No amount of ``oversight'' will be effective because they 
are persistent and consistent when delivering attempts to squeeze 
through the cracks in various situations--a perfect example was the 
premature release of WindowsXP series of operating systems. They 
knew it was a rush to get that genie out of the bottle before 
judgement or settlements could be made...all this in spite of the 
fact that WindowsXP persists in containing evidence of NO CHANGE in 
spite of their being found criminally guilty of antitrust law in the 
way they have packaged their software. Again, Microsoft's true 
colors show brighter than their rhetoric. And contrary to some 
common belief, I do not forsee further drop in the economy because 
of this. The same arguments were made regarding the great oil 
company split ups as well as the phone system. The fact is, I have 
not seen ANY ill effects resulting from this, and on the contrary, 
have managed to truly serve their purposes.
    My vote is for preventative measures that do not require 
oversight. SPLIT the company up so that they are barred from using 
its OS monopoly to leverage other markets unfairly.
    Thank you,
    Daniel S. Hauck
    3737 Brookhaven Club Drive #343
    Addison, TX 75001



MTC-00015522

From: Chad Lumpkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As an Electronic Technician having worked with Microsoft and 
competing products for over 10 years. And having read the proposed 
settlement between Microsoft and the DoJ. I formally submit my 
disapproval of said settlement based on the following information.
    1) The proposed settlement is very similar in word and substance 
to an agreement made by Microsoft and the DoJ in 1995. Had that 
agreement been successful there should not have been a need for new 
remedies.
    2) the settlement does not require the full disclosure of the 
API's needed for 3rd party software companies to create products 
that can compete on an even footing with microsoft products.
    3) the settlement does not require the document formats used to 
be opened. If there is to truly be competition on the desktop there 
must be a common language.
    Chad Lumpkin
    IT Consultant
    [email protected]



MTC-00015523

From: Codepunk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a windows developer and I would like to submit this letter 
of disapproval to the suggested remedy. During the web browser wars 
I saw for myself just how ruthless Microsoft's monopoly power was 
applied. Microsoft needed to win the browser wars so they forced us 
to install Internet Explorer on almost every computer we deployed a 
application to. They used us the developer by unnecessarily linking 
IE into any development code they possibly could, they also put key 
developer libraries into the IE distribution. If we tried to deploy 
any application that we had built with Microsoft tools it required 
us in some way to install Internet Explorer. Microsoft in the 
proposed judgment is not being punished in the least for it's 
predatory behavior against Netscape corporation. The court must do 
the right thing for the people and impose stricter penalties. Please 
do the right thing for us the people by not accepting the proposed 
judgment. All business's today are in a perpetual strangle hold by 
Microsoft and there are no good alternative solutions. The 
alternative solutions do not exist because the barrier to entry is 
to high. Competition will never be restored in the market place 
unless severe restrictive penalties are imposed on Microsoft.
    The economy today is in a horrible state, and I personally 
believe this is due to Microsoft's dominance of the software market. 
We are now in a situation where one monopoly company automatically 
consumes most of customer budgets. Restoring competition in the 
market place will create incredible growth and with this comes new 
jobs. As I type this letter I am on a broadband based satellite 
connect provided by a company partly owned by Microsoft. The company 
will of course support no other operating systems besides windows. 
It is my desire not to run Windows and or Internet Explorer please 
help me to have the ability to choose the environment that I run not 
be forced into it by a monopoly.
    Cliff Baeseman
    Software Developer



MTC-00015524

From: Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not think that the remedies proposed in the Microsoft case 
are adequate.
    Jeff Thomas
    [email protected]



MTC-00015525

From: Tom Rockwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am writing to express my concern that the Proposed Final 
Judgement in the Microsoft antitrust case does little to punish 
Microsoft for its illegal behaviour and does not take strong enough 
action to ensure innovation and competition in software products 
going forward. Microsoft's illegal behaviour has harmed companies 
such as Netscape, Real Networks, and computer hardware OEMs. 
Consumers have been harmed by Microsoft's secret licensing contracts 
with OEMs that require the OEM to pay for a Microsoft license for 
every PC they sell--even if the final end user with use a competing 
OS such as Linux. Microsoft's profits have been enhanced by billions 
of dollars due to this illegal behaviour, yet the PFJ has no 
punishments for these actions. The PFJ does not layout a workable 
and strong mechanism for ensuring that Microsoft with stop their 
illegal behaviour. The Technical Committee has limited and weak 
powers to stop anticompetitive behaviour. It is crazy that Microsoft 
is allowed to appoint one of the three members of the TC. Either the 
court or the DOJ should appoint all members of the TC.
    The PFJ does not adequately address the behaviours that 
Microsoft engages in to protect its monopoly against open source 
competitors such as Linux and Samba. By breaking interoperability 
with these competing products, Microsoft acts to protect its 
monopoly. Computer users have been greatly harmed and endured large 
expense (estimated in the billions of dollars) due to security 
weaknesses in Microsoft products. Microsoft's monopoly has prevented 
competition in the markets--competition that would likely favor more 
secure OS products. I see the PFJ as doing nothing to punish 
Microsoft for its illegal behaviour and letting it off with a mere 
promise to stop the behaviour in the future. This is not good enough 
to protect the rights of Americans. The DOJ has in the past reached 
consent decrees with Microsoft that were supposed to end its illegal 
behaviour. The decent decrees were all but ignored by Microsoft and 
led to the current lawsuit. The appearance is that the DOJ is not 
effectively prosecuting Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Rockwell
    Lansing, MI



MTC-00015526

From: Suman Karamched
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that Microsoft has too much dominance in the software 
world. I believe that settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft needs to 
be punished. ``Once I did bad and that I heard ever. Twice I did 
good, but that I heard never.''



MTC-00015527

From: Malcolm K. Gin-Hopwood y Silva

[[Page 26105]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    Thank you for your efforts trying to forge settlement with 
Microsoft to prevent their unduly biasing American technological 
business. Unfortunately, I disagree that the Proposed Final 
Judgement will adequately address the extreme measures Microsoft has 
made a daily part of its business dealings. I think the PFJ is 
simply inadequate to the task, and I urge you to consider the points 
made in Dan Kegel's (et al.) open letter regarding the settlement 
(at http://crossover.codeweavers.com/mirror/www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html).
    Sincerely,
    Malcolm Gin
    [email protected]/[email protected]
    Home contact information:
    5310 Cedar Lane, #206
    Columbia, MD 21044
    Phone: 410-884-0988



MTC-00015528

From: mark rauschkolb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement will solve the 
problem, nor will it prevent Microsoft from continuing to follow 
monopolistic practices. The settlement is full of ``legalese'' that 
has been carefully crafted with definitions and provisions that, on 
the surface look like they do one thing, but when you look at the 
real issue, find out that they do something else. Many of the 
definitions are too narrow to apply to many current Microsoft 
products, while minor modifications to other products will remove 
them from the list of items ``covered'' by the settlement.
    Mark Rauschkolb
    New Jersey



MTC-00015529

From: Scott Fiddelke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors, yet unfavorable to 
Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Scott Fiddelke
    965 Boston Way #4
    Coralville, IA 52241



MTC-00015530

From: sneed snodgrass
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    NO to the Microsoft settlement. It is an insult to the free 
peoples of the world!
    Sneed Snodgrass
    Waterloo
    Ontario
    Canada



MTC-00015531

From: Michael Vitalo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement for the Microsoft case is horrible. I think it 
is a bad idea and that Microsoft is getting away free if you go 
through with it. It would be better to punish Microsoft. One way to 
accomplish this is with a multi-billion dollar fine. I believe that 
half of their 36 billion in cash is certainly appropriate given the 
amount of damage they have done.
    Thank you for your time,
    Michael Vitalo
    Software Developer
    Austin, Texas



MTC-00015532

From: Dennis Anderson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe that the current settlement proposal is a bad idea. 
The Operating System industry must be opened to serious competition. 
People must have the freedom to choose, it is the very foundation of 
our society.
    Thank you,
    Dennis Anderson



MTC-00015533

From: Keith Blackwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Settlement is bad.



MTC-00015534

From: Garnet Ulrich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This proposed settlement is ludicrous. Please put the screws to 
Microsoft now.
    Garnet Ulrich
    TRM Technologies
    613.722.8843x112
    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax 
materiam possit materiari?



MTC-00015535

From: Billy Harvey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a bad settlement. 90% of Microsoft's value is due to its 
continued predatory business model. Distribution of their own 
software a situation that only applauds their anticompetitive 
attitudes, and serves to strengthen their position for their next 
(and even their ongoing) attempts to simply demolish any sort of 
competition. If Microsoft wants to distribute software, then the 
schools in question should be allowed to bill Microsoft for all the 
software they want that is of no financial benefit to Microsoft--for 
the next decade. Having to buy a few million copies of their 
competitor's offerings would encourage Microsoft to behave better in 
the future--but certainly not allowing them to distribute their own 
software which costs them nearly nothing in additional expense after 
it's been initially created. Microsoft should be broken up into 
multiple companies (or liquidated), and all interfaces between those 
companies should be made to be public documents for existant 
software, and also for the next decade. If those companies can 
survive on their own, then bravo, but Microsoft should not be 
allowed to enjoy the benefits of the market share they gain through 
so many examples of theft.
    Billy Harvey
    Greenville, SC



MTC-00015536

From: Frank Papa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of any decision which keeps government out of the 
affairs of private business. Whether or not Microsoft is a 
``monopoly'' or whether or not it is ``unfair'' that they have been 
as successful as they are is irrelevant as far as government goes. 
Private businesses have a right to operate any way they choose as 
long as they are not physically hurting people or are delibrately 
defarauding people. Microsoft has done neither. Instead, what they 
have done is make a great series of products that has become the 
wordlwide standard. In no way have they ``harmed'' the industry. 
Instead, they have singlehandedly brought the computer industry from 
a tiny niche in the early 80's, to one of the primary economic 
engines driving the US today. There certainly is no monopoly. A 
monopoly would imply that it is impossible for a competitor to make 
an entry into the market. This is clearly not the case. There have 
been many competitors that have successfully entered the marketplace 
using Linux and FreeBSD in just the past years.
    Microsoft has harmed no one and defrauded no one. Therefore, the 
US government should stay out of it's and it's competitors private 
business affairs.
    Frank Papa



MTC-00015537

From: Adam Holley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is not sufficient in it's 
restrictions and is vague enough to allow several loop-holes. For 
example: In Section III.A.2. A computer that only runs a non-Windows 
operating system is not included. So, for OEMs that sell computers 
that only have one non-Windows operating system installed, they 
could be retaliated against.
    There are several areas in Microsoft's EULAs that restrict users 
so that they may not use any Microsoft product in conjunction with 
any Publicly Available Software. This can serve no other purpose 
than to be anti-competitive, because it's restricts use based on 
competition, yet there is no restriction on Microsoft to remove this 
type of wording from their EULAs. Thank you for your time.
    Adam Holley

[[Page 26106]]



MTC-00015538

From: Imad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement[Revised text]
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    I would like to take just a moment to share my views on the 
current proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. It is my opinion 
that the proposal, as it now stands, is a slap on the wrist--nay, a 
pat on the head--approach that fails to truly allow competition in 
those areas where Microsoft has abused its monopolistic powers.
    First and foremost, Microsoft must be forced to make its APIs, 
file formats, and protocols totally and unconditionally open. As it 
stands, there is far too much ambiguity in the clause pertaining to 
this--as interpreter of the document, Microsoft can well claim that, 
say, Linux developers are not to have this information shared with 
them as they do not represent a commercial product. Likewise, there 
is too much leniency granted by the exclusion of remote Windows 2000 
administration related protocols. Many of these protocols--SMB/CIFS, 
for example--are used indirectly for Windows 2000 remote 
administration but are also crucial for creating products that are 
interoperable with Windows 2000 server. The ``Reasonable And Non-
Discriminatory'' licensing terms hurt Microsoft's biggest 
competition--the open-source/free-software movement that has given 
us Linux, OpenBSD, Mozilla/Netscape, OpenOffice, KOffice, and the 
like. All standards, API calls, protocols, etc. MUST be open for 
these valued members of the software community.
    Futhermore, the document must be revised to remove the mess of 
loopholes that exist which allow Microsoft to obey the word of the 
settlement without conforming to its spirit of non-discriminatory 
behavior. As it stands, Microsoft can ignore much of the document as 
it is riddled with technical loopholes. For example, Microsoft is 
able to force PC makers to associate internet content with Internet 
Explorer, word processing documents with Microsoft Word, and the 
like--removing shortcuts doesn't change the underlying behavior when 
a user clicks on a text document or an internet link. The three-
member enforcement crew has two members picked or approved by 
Microsoft itself, nullifying any usefulness of the group, especially 
when coupled with the fact that none of the members are allowed to 
speak of the atrocities they see committed by Microsoft. For such a 
daunting task as looking over source code, a far larger group is 
required, but a team of 15 individuals (three picked by Microsoft, 
three by the Free Software Foundation, and the other nine picked by 
corporations such as IBM, Sun, and Oracle) could begin to work at 
such a job. The group's [at least] weekly meetings should be 
transcribed for DoJ review, and any complaint supported by at least 
five members should be heard by the DoJ. Current litigation is 
absurd and meaningless, but could be salvaged by revising the terms 
of the settlement to preserve the spirit but allow less leeway to 
Microsoft, which has a history of twisting and disobeying court 
orders. Lastly, Microsoft's non-operating system groups must be 
either internally or externally seperated so that they are not 
allowed ``backdoor'' entrance to the operating system; the Microsoft 
Office team should have the same information on operating system-
related APIs and protocols as does the competition (e.g., Corel's 
WordPerfect Office team, Sun StarOffice team, KDE's KOffice team).
    Thank you for your time.
    Best,
    Imad Hussain



MTC-00015539

From: Chris Fish
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a horrible idea. Microsoft 
has definitely engaged in monopolistic practices and this settlement 
only furthers their domination. As a consumer, I need choice in 
operating systems--don't allow them extra opportunities to extend 
their power.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Fish



MTC-00015540

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft case. I do not believe this settlement is 
sufficient to remedy the damages caused by Microsoft's prior 
conduct, and do not believe it is sufficient to prevent much of that 
conduct from continuing.
    David Orgeman



MTC-00015541

From: Mike Stortz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed ``settlement'' does not address numerous 
and substantial issues concerning Microsoft's monopoly on the 
computer operating system market. It's time to let free market 
forces take effect, and to do that, Microsoft market forces (i.e. 
blackmail) need to be substantially moderated.
    Thanks,
    Mike Stortz



MTC-00015542

From: Fumitaka Hayashi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am vehemently opposed to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft Anti-trust Case. I feel strongly that Microsoft is an 
illegal monopoly which stifles the computer industry with illegal 
anti-competitive business practices. Please reconsider the 
settlement.
    Thank you,
    Fumitaka Hayashi



MTC-00015543

From: Todd Derrenbacker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wish to state my opinion that I am against the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust case. The monopoly power that 
MS has over the other competitors in the operating systems market is 
downright wrong. I have been using personal computers since the late 
80's (for, I am only 20 years of age) and know a great deal about 
the market and how it has been shaped by MS's monopolistic 
practices. We'll leave the new AOL-Time Warner monopoly alone for 
now. To save you time in reading my babble, I will agree with the 
essay written by Dan Kegel at this web address:
    Thanks,
    Todd Derrenbacker,
    Lynchburg, VA



MTC-00015544

From: Daniel Stein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea. I don't understand how this will 
protect us consumers from a multi-billion dollar company with 
ubiquitous monopolistic control of the computer market. Please find 
a settlement that will allow competition in the Operative System 
market again.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Stein



MTC-00015545

From: jortiz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a win for Microsoft and huge loss to 
the people and competing businesses. It shames me that our own 
government set up to protect it's citizens would turn its back.
    This is not acceptable and must be corrected.
    Jose Ortiz



MTC-00015546

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and/or Madams,
    I strongly oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Antitrust Case.
    Thank you
    Max Requenes
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00015547

From: The Icewalker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Complaints
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I'm not even sure where to begin. I'm definitely writing to you 
because I don't feel that the back out of the Department of Justice 
was the best thing to do concerning the Microsoft Antitrust Case. To 
reach a settlement with a giant is only to invite more trouble. The 
government has settled before on infractions and ``here we are 
again, back in court, again.''

[[Page 26107]]

    How have I been hurt by Microsoft's dominance?
    Let's see, I definitely feel that my ``FREEDOM'' to do with my 
own computer what I wish has been compromised by Microsoft and 
Windows. I've seen product updates change my personal preferences. 
I'm sorry, but I don't feel like opening my JPG's in Internet 
Explorer or MS Photo Editor. If I want to use PhotoShop, then those 
preferences should stay there, not be hijacked by the OS! I know 
it's petty, but it's also annoying multiplied by millions. It's also 
unfair to those other companies that have spent the time, asked the 
user, and are now out of the loop. Yeah Yeah, I can go change them 
back, but I shouldn't have to do that over and over and over again 
all becuase I'm now required to Install the latest version of 
Internet Explorer so I can use my latest Word Processor. Since when 
were the two required to need each other? They have separate 
functions and shouldn't require each other!
    Secondly, I'm tired of not having the choice of some other OS or 
no OS at all when I buy a computer. Let's see, there is Dell, 
Gateway, Compaq, HP, IBM. Try to buy a home computer without Windows 
and some other MS Word Processing Package. It's dang near 
impossible. And when I ask, I get the story, ``We can't ship a 
system without an OS.'' Well that's crap. It costs money to put the 
OS on, you'd think they would love to be able not to do that. I've 
decided to build my own. More people should learn to do it so they 
wouldn't be so ignorant and blind.
    Linux is an alternative. How do I know. I've built my own 
computer, and I've installed Linux. Hmmmmm...I have a nice system 
for a whole lot less money and I got what I WANT! Not what some 
operating system company wanted for me. It's about Choice and as 
long as a predator is allowed to prey on the masses, there is no 
choice.
    It's time to put the sleeping giant to bed an allow the people 
of this country a little bit more freedom of choice. Afterall, if 
all software comes from Microsoft, that is a bad thing * * *the 
``all your eggs in one basket'' mentality if you ask me!
    I pray that somebody in the government wakes up, stop accepting 
donations, and does what they were elected by the people to do, to 
serve the people, not the corporate interest! I'm now done with my 
soapbox lecture!
    Sincerely Yours,
    James Bruce
    Informatics Manager and Linux Advocate Charleston SC



MTC-00015548

From: Steven K. Reinhardt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As an assistant professor in the Computer Science and 
Engineering division of the University of Michigan's Electrical 
Engineering and Computer Science department, I am writing to protest 
the terms of the proposed anti-trust settlement with Microsoft.
    Microsoft has repeatedly and blatantly leveraged their monopoly 
of the desktop PC operating systems market to gain a competitive 
advantage in other markets, and has shown no indication of regret 
for these actions. It is critical that Microsoft be barred from 
repeating this behavior for competition in the information 
technology sector to survive. The next few years will be crucial in 
the deployment of widespread Internet-based services (such as 
Microsoft's .NET), and the form that these services take will 
largely determine the level of consumer choice and privacy available 
in this domain. I am also concerned about Microsoft's role in 
digital rights management technology (as embodied in their Windows 
Media Player). The applications of this technology must tread a fine 
line between copyright protection and fair use. If the technology is 
in the hands of a single corporation such as Microsoft, it will be 
too easy for them to ally with other large media conglomerates to 
force solutions that erode consumers'' fair use of digital content. 
While I believe Microsoft has a right to compete in these areas, 
they must be forced to do so on an equal footing with other 
corporations.
    I feel that the US DOJ settlement is inadequate in its terms and 
lacks credible enforcement provisions even for the weak concessions 
it forces on Microsoft. Again, I encourage you to continue to press 
for a more thorough and enforceable settlement that will provide 
consumers with choice and freedom in the years to come.
    Steven K. Reinhardt
    Assistant Professor, EECS
    The University of Michigan
    email: [email protected]
    phone: (734) 647-7959, fax: (734) 763-4617
    www: http://www.eecs.umich.edu/stever



MTC-00015549

From: Brad Midgley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement sith Microsoft is a bad idea.
    Brad Midgley
    Salt Lake City, UT



MTC-00015550

From: Matt Smolik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement with Microsoft is a very bad 
idea. This amounts to a slap on the wrist, if that, for Industry 
wide antitrust violation. Industry wide antitrust violation that 
continue to this day, with new violation each week.
    It is not as much what Microsoft does, but how they do it. In an 
effort to ``simplify'' their OS they purposfully decieve the user. 
Even if Microsoft is forced to stop the binding of their own 
software with their OS, they still have control over which 
application will open which type of document. They have always 
hidden this from the user, and it is painfull to use even if you 
know where to locate it. This is one way that Microsoft will 
continue to force their own software over all others.
    Additionally on point A (Unbinding Microsoft's Software) this 
will have little to no effect. If the user is unaware that they may 
obtain a different web browser then they can not choose to. While 
working as in Internet Technical Support, I have heard many users 
claim that Internet Explorer --IS-- the Internet. They do not know 
any better, thus use the software that came on their computer 
blindly. Moreover, I have informed many users that they do indeed 
have a choice in browser software (just to name one) but this is to 
no avail for they do not know how to obtain and/or install new 
software or do not wish to bother learning. Thus it is too late and 
the user is lost down the Microsoft path.
    I hope that my words have not fallen on deaf Microsoft purchased 
ears. ``I don't mind Microsoft making money. I mind them having a 
bad operating system.''--Linus Torvalds (``The Rebel Code,'' NY 
Times, 21 February 1999)
    Matthew Smolik
    P.S. Since you are probably using Microsoft Outlook to view 
this, can you name 5 other email programs?
    P.P.S It is very unsettling to learn that Microsoft is 
advertising their monopolistic OS in the United States Post Office.
    http://www.macintouch.com/postoffice.html



MTC-00015551

From: Wallace, William
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until 
its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, 
assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This must be 
true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    William Wallace.
    William Wallace
    Principal Engineer
    InterWorld Corporation
    Email:[email protected] Phone:212 301 2428 Cell/Fax:973 
626 0115.
    wind catches lily
    scatt'ring petals to the wind:

[[Page 26108]]

    segmentation fault



MTC-00015552

From: Timothy E Basham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea, and will 
merely leave Microsoft to do what they have done to get to this 
point again.
    Timothy E Basham
    Timothy E Basham
    Programmer AutoSafe Intl.
    [email protected]
    (309) 827-6793
    http://www.asiiad.com



MTC-00015553

From: Jim Rule
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    While I feel the government and Microsoft's adversaries went too 
far by attempting to break up Microsoft for supposed antitrust 
violations, the resolution through settlement is preferable to 
continued, costly and time consuming litigation.
    I believe the settlement is fair and reasonable, and is a very 
positive development for the technology industry.
    It is really a mystery as to why the settlement does not satisfy 
certain of Microsoft's adversaries. More than likely, it is because 
Microsoft was not forced to break up and they will never be happy 
until it is. This attitude is unfortunate and should not be allowed 
to distract the settlement process. Therefore, I urge you to settle 
this matter as quickly as possible so the technology industry can 
get back to innovating. Thank you.
    Jim Rule
    Critical Technologies, Inc.
    100 Park Avenue Suite 500
    Oklahoma City, OK 73102
    405-235-8400 x105
    www.criticaltech.com
    http://www.criticaltech.com>
    www.filesonthenet.com
    http://www.filesonthenet.com>
    CC:``senator(a)nickles.senate.gov''



MTC-00015554

From: J. Todd Owen, PE
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe the proposed settlement address the core case 
issues.
    The remedy will not protect consumers in the long run.
    J. Todd Owen, PE
    IMEC Engineers
    434-239-2623
    434-237-8295 (F)



MTC-00015555

From: Greg Willden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft Settlement under the 
statutes of the Tunney Act.
    I think that the settlement is very poor and does not properly 
address the real issues. There are numerous loopholes in the 
proposed settlement that will allow Microsoft, who has a history of 
unethical and illegal actions, to transform this penalty into an 
advantage for them. In order to restore proper competition I think 
it necessary for Microsoft to publish the file formats of all their 
Microsoft Office files. The .doc file format is widely used. If the 
format were made available then other office productivity suites 
like WordPerfect, StarOffice, Abiword and OpenOffice could 
effectively compete with them. Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs) must be allowed to sell a computer that can boot up into more 
than one Operating System. This has been attempted in the past but 
has been quashed by Microsoft's legal team. It is suspected that 
Microsoft is forcing the OEMs into single OS bootloader licenses 
that disallow this behavior.
    These are only a few of the things that Microsoft has done to 
stifle competition and innovation. For all of Microsoft's talk about 
being able to innovate. They are doing more to hurt it than they are 
to help it.
    The settlement also needs to have some real teeth. The 
``independent'' auditors/monitors of Microsoft's behavior need to 
have complete independence and freedom to discuss any of their 
findings with the public and press. Unless they are allowed to do 
this their voices will be too easily silenced.
    Microsoft should also have major fines imposed upon it for 
future violations of the settlement. Fines substantial enough that 
it will think twice before violating the public trust. And the 
monies collected from these fines should go to their competitors. I 
would recommend projects related to the GNU/Linux Operating System. 
Microsoft has openly acknowledged that Linux is a real competitor. 
What better way to ensure compliance than to force Microsoft to 
donate substantial funds to their competitors.
    Microsoft has been shown to practice illegal predatory behavior. 
Do not cave in to them and give them a settlement with so many 
loopholes. They will exploit it to the detriment of all.
    Greg Willden
    San Antonio, Texas
    Software Engineer
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even 
when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.



MTC-00015556

From: DnA Dvorkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    We wish to express our disagreement with the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust case. Weak conduct remedies such as those 
proposed will do nothing to change Microsoft's anti-competitive and 
anti-innovative business practices. Equally disturbing is the 
proposal that Microsoft should be able to choose part of the team 
responsible for enforcement of the settlement (weak as it may be.) 
This is equivalent to letting a convicted felon choose one of his 
friends to be his parole officer.
    Very simply, Microsoft broke the law, and must be punished.
    sincerely,
    Daniel and Andrea Dvorkin
    Denver, CO



MTC-00015557

From: Andrew Williams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my vote against the proposed settlement. 
I won't list every complaint, since I'm trying to keep this short 
and I tend to ramble. I'll focus on the numerous loopholes in the 
settlement, specifically the proposed ``limitations'' on Microsoft's 
behavior in regards to two things: unfairly competing with other 
products(by integration into Windows, using secret APIs, or 
whatever) and the ``disclosure of communications protocols necessary 
to interoperate with Windows''
    Regarding the first, Microsoft can easily choose to 
``integrate'' anything they like, and in theory, have no problems. I 
do have issues with regards to the ``forced usage'' that they rely 
on. Windows XP comes with MSN Messenger, with NO option to uninstall 
or disable. Why? Do I even have an internet connection at home? 
Shouldn't I be able to at least uninstall it? The definition of 
``Operating System'' is very loose, and cannot be relied upon to 
limit their actions. Obviously, they have no intention of stopping 
their own ``absorption'' of other products.
    As to the second, the ``disclosure of communications 
protocols,'' the definition of ``interoperate'' is fairly clear. 
However, Microsoft could easily choose to have an ``open'' protocol 
with their ``proprietary'' extensions. This would be legal with the 
current settlement, as the ``open'' protocol could work. However, I 
would bet a year's salary that Windows would by default present the 
options to users to use the ``proprietary'' extensions, thus making 
them frustrated when they had to give them up to use the ``open'' 
protocol. Users don't want to ``lose'' features, even if they aren't 
needed. This is just ONE loophole, and it would result in basically 
no change from the status quo.
    In summary, a more strict punishment MUST be applied. I am tired 
of others looking at me strangely because I don't have Office. I 
CHOOSE not to spend hundreds of dollars on an application that I 
only ``need'' because others don't know that an alternative exists. 
If its going to be a ``standard'' like that, it should come with the 
OS, just like IE is now ``standard.'' Though I should mention, the 
numbers are inflated since users of Windows can't NOT use IE. I 
personally avoid it as much as possible, and it still pops up all 
the time. I've found Opera, for example, to be faster, more stable, 
and easier to use, but I have to identify myself as an IE user to 
load some pages, because Microsoft has made the world think that IE 
is the only browser. It is this kind of situation that has to stop. 
A superior product should never die simply because the competitor is 
funded by a mammoth entity with a load of cash. The

[[Page 26109]]

proposed settlement would not fix this problem, and I don't know of 
a solution myself. I'm a programmer, and I only see good things 
being ruined by MS. I can say without reservation that this 
settlement is a wrist-slap, nothing more. Don't let my money(from 
taxes to fund the trial) go to waste.
    Thank you for your time,
    Andrew Williams



MTC-00015558

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement against Microsoft is wrong, and I am 
against it. I was forced to buy a Windows license for a PC I bought 
recently to a large vendor, yet the hard drive was immediately 
formatted to put an alternative Operating system on the drive.
    Regards,
    Gaetan Soltesz



MTC-00015559

From: Duncan Murphy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the current proposed settlement is a bad idea. I am not 
a lawyer, but it is clear that the remedy is not much more than a 
``slap on the hand''.
    The Court of Appeals did not turn aside the original judgment, 
just the proposed split of the company. Any settlement needs to be 
strong enough to send a message to Microsoft (and any other company 
contemplating monopolistic business practice), that such practice is 
not taken lightly.
    James Duncan Murphy
    Consultant, Owner
    Problem Solved!
    2638 Spring Station Road
    Midway, KY 40347



MTC-00015560

From: Howard Lee Harkness
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement appears to me to be flawed. The idea of 
breaking Microsoft into two or more separate entities was much 
better. Microsoft should be split, and *all* communication between 
the split companies should be made public, which would eliminate the 
secret APIs.
    Howard Lee Harkness
    [email protected]>



MTC-00015561

From: Lynne Klopf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00015562

From: Alex Hutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a very bad, bad settlement for the people. Microsoft 
will be rewarded, not punished.
    Alex Hutton



MTC-00015563

From: Alexander Hutton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please consider this a voice against the current settlement. 
Microsoft will only gain from this settlement and it in no way 
punishes them.



MTC-00015564

From: Ian McLaury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. I urge the court to 
reject the proposed settlement and properly punish the convicted 
lawbreaker, Microsoft.



MTC-00015565

From: Mike Bakula
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen;
    I am writing to briefly express my disapproval of the current 
outlined settlement with Microsoft in the current antitrust 
proceedings. The changes proposed are far too limited, and 
completely ignore the damage already done to the computer hardware 
and software markets, and the threat to the networked comptuing 
market that is presented by the current Microsoft organization and 
culture.
    Please reconsider the idea of structural changes to Microsoft, 
or at least some form of strict, preemptive oversight; otherwise, we 
are all in for ``Internet: a trademark of Microsoft, Inc''.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Michel J Bakula
    839 E Glencoe St
    Palatine, IL 60074



MTC-00015566

From: Jesse Burson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are a large number of problems I have with the proposed 
Microsoft sentiment. Here are some letters sent by others with which 
I agree: Most of all, I agree with the ``Open Letter to DOJ Re: 
Microsoft Settlement'' found here:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    In addition:
    ``Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Similar to the settlement against 
AT&T, Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until 
its market share drops to an acceptable level (40%, for example, 
assuming one of it's competitors is now also at 40%). This must be 
true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is lifted. 
Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.''
    ``I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of the 
American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be estimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.''
    ``I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.''



MTC-00015567

From: Roberts, Bud
To: `Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom this concerns, Microsoft should not be punished for 
outperforming its competitors.They should be applauded.

[[Page 26110]]

    Please leave them alone.
    Bud Roberts
    [email protected]



MTC-00015568

From: Jesse Sweetland
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am presently very concerned with the proceedings of the 
Microsoft Anti-trust case. I am not a lawyer, and I don't understand 
the finer points of the proposed settlements. I feel that the broad 
wording of the proposed settlement and failure to accurately define 
terms in a definite, undisputable, and technical sense contribute 
largely to this. I will therefore avoid a technical criticism and 
express more plainly my fears concerning Microsoft's monopoly.
    I am currently composing this E-mail on a machine with Microsoft 
Windows 2000, using the Microsoft Outlook portion of the Microsoft 
Office 2000 product suite. From my computer it will travel upstream 
to a Microsoft Exchange E-mail server, where it will in turn be 
transmitted via the World Wide Web and land in your inbox, 
presumably a part of another Microsoft Product.
    Perhaps the E-mail address I am sending to is an alias for a 
mailing list, and this letter will find its way to a Microsoft 
Hotmail account, and a user, authorized using his or her Microsoft 
Passport, may view it. In the not-so-very-future perhaps this will 
be done using a Microsoft Homestation over the Microsoft Network, 
using proprietary protocols and encryption schemes.
    And while this hypothetical individual is viewing his E-mail, it 
is entirely possible that he is listening to music purchased via one 
of Microsoft's partnerships with various music labels, protected 
against distribution using Microsoft's Digital Rights Management, 
which, of course, is built into the hardware/firmware of the 
Microsoft Homestation and Microsoft Windows XP, which, in accordance 
with future digital rights management legislation (SSSCA), will be 
the only hardware/software bundle which conforms to the mandatory 
digital rights management requirements. Microsoft has a foothold in 
the hardware, operating system, application, media, services, and 
development arenas. Like any business, when they see an opportunity 
to expand their business model to increase profit, they do so. 
Unlike other businesses, they can move in and sell products at a 
loss to gain market share until the competition is eliminated. Right 
now the Microsoft XBox sells for a per-unit loss of $150. This puts 
them in the same price range as the Sony Playstation 2 and the 
Nintendo Gamecube. With more advanced hardware and similar 
development platform as Microsoft Windows, the XBox stands an 
excellent chance of outselling and stifling the competition in the 
market. This is Microsoft's first entry into the market, and it will 
dominate in less than a year.
    Right now an individual can sign up for a Microsoft Passport and 
Microsoft Passport Wallet accounts (indeed they are *strongly* 
encouraged to do so in Windows XP) and with a single click 
authenticate themselves on a number of online sites. While this adds 
convenience it gives Microsoft a disturbing amount of control and 
influence online. This, combined with national ID card legislation 
puts Microsoft in a position to be the first to synchronize its own 
authentication services with the national registry. No other company 
has the infrastructure or the capital.
    Microsoft is aligning itself with the major powers, namely the 
government and the entertainment industry. It's breaking into new 
markets with disturbing power and force. Microsoft already controls 
the form and function of my daily life in the workplace and on my 
home PC, but it also stands to control what music I listen to how 
often, where I may shop, and what kind of digital content I may 
view. It may track my purchasing habits, my financial transactions, 
and the places I like to visit on the web. Doesn't having all of 
this power in one company concern you?
    Microsoft has called itself ``the Gatekeeper.'' That's scary 
enough, isn't it? Especially considering their track record for 
security and stability. I would feel much safer knowing that 
Microsoft was divided into two if not more separate companies. 
Opening APIs and promising to be nice is not enough. Microsoft can 
and will find a way to abuse the wording of this settlement to the 
detriment of its competition. Look at its track record of legal 
battles and you will see that there is not much it can't accomplish. 
Look at how people are balking at the decision to split up 
Microsoft. They know that doing so would cause a severe disruption 
in the industry. It would profoundly affect thousands of businesses. 
Isn't this evidence enough that they *should* be divided?
    Please, reject the proposed settlement in favor of a decision to 
break up
    Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Jesse Sweetland
    Programmer/Analyst
    Network Telephone Corporation



MTC-00015569

From: Doug Turner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is not in the best interest 
of consumers. Microsoft has repeatedly shown that they will stop at 
nothing to destroy competitors. It is well past time that Microsoft 
was broken into seperate companies--one for its Operating Systems, 
one for the rest of its computer software, and one for its consumer 
electronics and other hardware.
    Regards,
    Doug Turner



MTC-00015570

From: scott lewandowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proprosed settlement 
in Microsoft's anti-trust case. As a technology worker who uses 
Microsoft sotware daily, I am exposed to the lack of choice and 
increased costs their monopoly has created. The proposed penalty 
contains enough vague language (e.g. defining middleware) that it 
does little to prevent them from exploiting their monopoly even 
further in the future.
    Thank you for your time.
    Scott Lewandowski
    Lincoln, Nebraska



MTC-00015571

From: Tony Rimovsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed microsoft settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen/Ladies,
    As a software engineer with 20 years' experience developing 
software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd like to 
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft. According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies 
decree in an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny 
to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure 
that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in 
the future'' (section V.D., p. 99). Attorney General John Ashcroft 
seems to agree; he called the proposed settlement ``strong and 
historic'', said that it would end ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' 
and said ``With the proposed settlement being announced today, the 
Department of Justice has fully and completely addressed the anti-
competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals against 
Microsoft.''
    Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary 
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to 
the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a 
monopoly on Intel-compatible PC operating systmes, and that the 
company's market position is protected by a substantial barrier to 
entry (p. 15). Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that 
Microsoft is liable under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining 
its monopoly by imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs 
(Internet Access Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), 
and Apple Computer, by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM 
(Java Virtual Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing 
Intel to drop support for cross-platform Java tools.
    The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a 
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition 
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final 
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier 
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
    The fact that you would consider allowing this proposed farce of 
a settlement is an

[[Page 26111]]

outrage. For goodness sake get a backbone, get off your collective 
fannies and do the RIGHT thing !
    James B. Huber
    [email protected]



MTC-00015573

From: Kevin Yager
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern;
    I disagree with much of the proposed MS settlement. I'm afraid 
Microsoft will be like a bad dog who has a nieve owner. The Dog 
(Microsoft) keeps biting people. The owner (DOJ) keeps saying, ``he 
won't do it again.'', or its ``not the dog's fault.'' I particularly 
disagree with Section III.A.2., and Section III.B. Don't give MS the 
power to bully OEM's. Don't give MS ANY power to bully ANY OEM's.
    More should be added to Sections III.F. and III.G. MS should not 
be able to say or limit what other software is distributed with it's 
own software. MS shouldn't be able to limit what operating systems's 
their Redistributable Componenets can be run on.
    Kevin Yager
    2800 Jagger Road
    Marion, NY 14505
    716 722 5916



MTC-00015574

From: William Fowler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I have read over the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case 
and feel that the punishment is not equal to the crime. It almost 
appears as a slap on the wrist, gives a few new rules they have to 
operate by, and then allows them to continue from where they are 
now, minus the new rules. I feel that they should be punished and 
not allowed to keep the current postition that they have, since they 
have arrived there because of illegal practises. Its like letting a 
thief keep what he stole if he promises to not steal anymore.
    Thank you,
    William S. Fowler
    Baton Rouge, LA



MTC-00015575

From: Dan Raasch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    The Proposed Final Judgment for Microsoft is ludicrously 
inadequate. Thousands of companies (along with their innovations) 
have been illegally destroyed by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
practices in the past, and the PFJ does nothing to remedy this. It 
also is bereft of foresight and is self-contradictory--the court 
defined Microsoft-specific file formats (i.e. Word .doc and other 
office documents) as barriers to entry, and judged Microsoft a 
monopoly in part because of this, but the PFJ makes no demands that 
Microsoft release these file formats so as to let others compete. 
Additionally, the PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but defines 
Windows absurdly narrowly. For instance, the PFJ definition of 
Windows does not apply to Windows XP Tablet PC edition, even though 
Microsoft is making aggressive moves toward replacing the 
traditional PC with tablet PCs. I could go on and on about 
Microsoft's anti-competitive licensing practices or their attempts 
to cripple competing software, but these things are all in the court 
record. The PFJ doesn't significantly limit these practices. I am 
writing to you to join in the chorus of people shaming this judgment 
and demanding a better one. I also think that when considering these 
comments, you should give more weight to anti-Microsoft comments 
than to pro-Microsoft ones, considering Microsoft has a PR machine 
unlike any other, while Microsoft's destroyed competitors obviously 
have no PR machine.
    Sincerely,
    --Dan Raasch
    3410 Surrey Heights Dr. #306
    Eagan, MN 55122



MTC-00015576

From: Chris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00015577

From: Mark Ward
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea!
    Mark Ward



MTC-00015578

From: Brent Bryan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds of small companies, 
and many larger companies have been devastated by Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices. Similar to the settlement against AT&T, 
Microsoft should become a government regulated Monopoly, until its 
market share drops to an acceptable level (60%, for example) This 
must be true for all Microsoft product lines, before regulation is 
lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. (Note for 
instance Internet Explorer's base in the new XP software) The market 
must be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    -Brent Bryan
    Graduate Student
    Yale University



MTC-00015579

From: Carl Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is a bad idea for the computer and 
software industries
    Carl Alexander



MTC-00015580

From: Jack Cox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern,
    I dislike to proposed and revised proposed Microsoft Settlements 
for several reasons:
    1) The agreement provides too many simple ways that Microsoft 
can defeat the penalties stipulated in the agreement.
    2) The provision allowing Microsoft to not reveal protocols due 
to security concerns. Every protocol in the system can be covered by 
this one exclusion. Any protocol can be used to break a Windows 
system given the correct circumstances.
    3) Licenses the protocol specifications in a reasonable and non-
discriminatory fashion leaves too much room for MSFT to charge a 
high figure for the specification, thereby locking out all startup/
individual developers from using the specification.
    4) None of the licensing provisions cover non-commericial or 
open-source development initiatives.
    Therefore, MSFT could freely not license their protocols to 
open-source development groups.
    These 4 reasons are just the beginning. Given the proven past 
behavior of Microsoft, and given its current behavior against 
current competitors (Real Networks, Novell, Sun/Java, and others), 
the proposed remedies are not heavy enough.
    Thanks for listening.
    Jack Cox
    Richmond, Virginia



MTC-00015581

From: Curt Pederson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The settlement with Microsoft is NOT going to change anything. 
Microsoft has the upper hand and will continue operating as normal. 
As a US citizen, I do not support the settlement and request a 
harder line be taken.
    Thank you,
    Curt Pederson
    Madison WI
    Curt Pederson
    Berbee
    5520 Research Park Drive
    Madison, WI 53711
    [email protected]
    608.298.1259 Fax 608.288.3007
    Berbee...putting the E in business



MTC-00015582

From: Kenneth Lewelling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposal for the Microsoft settlement will not 
prevent Microsoft from

[[Page 26112]]

staying a monopoly in the computer industry. Microsoft employees are 
spreading this around as ``..a victory over the government.'' If the 
government shows they are incapable or unwilling to stop Microsofts 
monopoly over the software industry, who else is there to stand in 
Microsofts way?
    Since the trial has started Microsofts grip on ISP's and 
hardware vendors has slowly loosend up for fear of how it would be 
represented in the case against them. Once Microsoft accepts the 
current settlement they will go back to their previous methods of 
forcing the industry to accept their software and force out 
competitors, but it is not their previous methods the software 
industry is only worried about. By recieving the current settlement 
this will show the industry that even the government and it's laws 
cannot stop Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft will be able to expand 
their practices beyond strict EULA's, enforcing proprietary 
``standards'' and harrassing/buying out small companies. They will 
be able to stretch more laws, find more loopholes and choose more 
``un-ethical'' business means knowing that the most powerful system 
that could have stopped them was not powerful enough. Once again I 
say that the DOJ and US government should be putting a stop to 
Microsofts monopoly. By forcing them to release their file formats, 
protocols or something similar that will allow other companies to 
compete with them. But the current settlement simply shows that the 
government no longer has the power to enforce the laws that control 
our capitalist country.



MTC-00015583

From: Mike Perham
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the Microsoft settlement lets off microsoft with a 
slap on the wrist. As a software developer, I have seen the effects 
of Microsoft's monopoly over the last 10 years and hope that the DOJ 
will impose a much harsher penalty that will truly level the playing 
field rather than allowing them to simply buy their way out of the 
current situation.
    mike perham
    austin, tx



MTC-00015584

From: Jim Barkley
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I do not believe that the propose anti-trust settlement properly 
addresses the harm that Microsoft has inflicted due to its 
anticomplentive behavior in the past. Nor has there seemed to be any 
willingness on the part of Microsoft to live up to its commitments 
to adjust its behavior.
    Jim Barkley



MTC-00015585

From: Lang, Jeff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Do not agree with settlement
    I do not agree with this settlement



MTC-00015586

From: Green Bryan--bgreen
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very discouraged with the proposed settlement. Microsoft 
has violated the sense of fair play that Americans, as a whole, 
deeply cherish. For a corporation of there size, the punishment does 
not fit the violations. It will not discourage them from going that 
route again. They have shown that they do not value the law accept 
when it benefits them. It is obvious that they view the US legal 
code as a gamebook whose reading of is to provide insights into how 
to skirt the rules of the game of fair competition.
    Bryan Green



MTC-00015587

From: Eduard Kleyn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idia!
    Eduard Kleyn
    The LDS Corporation
    Tel: (913) 492-5700 x225
    FAX: (913) 492-2794
    [email protected]
    : www.ldsinc.com



MTC-00015588

From: John Enters
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally believe that the proposed settlement is 
inconsistent with the findings of the proceedings. In other words it 
is a bad idea. I also believe that the comments made by Dan Kegel do 
a thorough job of detailing why this is so. His comments can be 
found at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    John Enters



MTC-00015589

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015590

From: Andrew Reilly
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have worked in the Internet field since 1992 and found 
Microsoft on all occasions that I have worked with them, in my 
personal experience, to be unbashed bullies. I have seen nothing to 
indicate that this has changed, and believe that the remedies 
proposed will do nothing to prevent this behaviour in future. I 
believe that the remedies proposed by the DOJ are completed 
inadequate, and that the remedies proposed by California, Florida, 
Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, West Virgina, and the 
District of Columbia are barely adequate. The dissenting states are 
closer, but the Judge should strenghten the remedy to ensure beyond 
a reasonable doubt the safety of inovation and commerce in the 
United States.
    regards,
    Andrew Reilly



MTC-00015591

From: Jennifer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ms. Renata B. Hesse:
    I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed Microsft 
settlement. I feel that the this ``remedy'' is, in fact, a license 
for Microsoft to continue monopolizing the market. The settlement 
has no substantial benefit to consumers, and does nothing to prevent 
Microsoft from continuing to exploit its current omnipotence in the 
computer industry. Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated its 
arrogant disregard for the laws of the United States, and the 
introduction of ``licensing 6.0'' and Windows XP demonstrate that, 
even at this critical moment, they have no intention of changing 
their ways. To reiterate: this proposed settlement is far too weak 
to result in any change in Microsoft's monopolistic behavior. The 
harmful effects to the rest of the computer industry are 
incalulable; even free software will be seriously damaged, since the 
wording of the agreement explicitly excludes free software from even 
the limited protection afforded to other Microsoft competitors. This 
effectively frees Microsoft to go after the Linux operating system 
``hammer and tongs.''
    Please reject this token ``remedy'' and seek an agreement that 
provides real reparations for those harmed, and deterrants to 
prevent future harm.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Stathakis



MTC-00015592

From: Scott D. Davilla
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a OS level programmer, I think a the think the proposed 
settlement is bad idea because it does nothing to prevent the hidden

[[Page 26113]]

OS level APIs that Microsoft uses to enhance their applications like 
``MSWord'' or ``Excel''. Since Microsoft control both the OS API and 
the application API, they have access to enhanced API routines that 
are not published or documented for 3rd party programmers.
    It is well known among windows programmers that there is the two 
ways to program under windows, 1) the documented way and 2) the 
undocumented way. Much time is spent trying to figure out the 
undocumented API so that our 3rd party applications can have the 
same features as Microsoft applications. The only way to level the 
playing field is to split Microsoft into two logically and 
physically separate companies. An OS level company and an 
application level company. There is no communication permitted 
beyond the documented APIs. The application level company has the 
same access to the API as everyone else does.
    Thanks
    Scott D. Davilla
    Phone: 919 489-1757 ext 13 (tel)
    Fax: 919 489-1487 (fax)
    4pi Analysis, Inc.
    3500 Westgate Drive, Suite 403
    Durham, North Carolina 27707-2534
    email: [email protected]
    web: http://www.4pi.com



MTC-00015593

From: Dhaval Patel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Dhaval Patel. I live at 451 Maplewood Ave Roselle 
Park, NJ 07204. I am a U.S. Citizen and I feel that the Microsoft 
Settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015594

From: William G. Thompson, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea, is not in the public 
interest and should not be accepted.
    Bill Thompson
    550 Barrymore St.
    Phillipsburg, NJ 08865



MTC-00015595

From: Eric Lorenz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsft settlement
Jan. 23, 2002
    To the Dept. of Justice employees working on the Microsoft case: 
The settlement in the Microsoft case is a joke. Microsoft time and 
again has used its position to manipulate people, manipulate 
companies, lie, cheat, ignore computing standards or change them so 
they only work with their own products, and flaunt the law. 
Especially when it comes to anti-trust law. They have been convicted 
of breaking the anti-trust laws, but now the penalty proposed for 
them is mearly a slap on the wrist. It does not go far enough, and 
will not make Microsoft change its behavior or business practices.
    Don't let Microsoft get away with this!
    Eric Lorenz
    P.S. Listed below are web pages that show different apects of 
Microsoft's influence and business practices. below are web pages 
that show different apects of Microsoft's influence and business 
practices.

--MS own version of TCP/IP; MS breaks navigator functionality; 
disables Qt functionality; http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20010816.html
--MS fakes support letters in effort to lobby people; http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134332634_microlob23.html
--MS prevents free speech (criticism) with EULA; http://
www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/09/17/
010917opfoster.xml?0920tham
--How MS registered file types allow them to extend their monopoly 
and stifle competition; http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2001/10/
08/file_monopoly/index.html
--why the US surrendered to MS; http://www.thenation.com/
doc.mhtml?i=special&s=moglen20010909
--WinXP prevents installation of 3rd party drivers, and only MS 
version of software will work; http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/
4/20805.html
--Ms and ``smart tags''; http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-
6399150.html?tag=mn_hd
--WinXP incompatibles with other OS; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/05/19/2355206&mode=thread
--MS wants only MS OS on new PCs; http://www.aaxnet.com/news/
M010425.html
--MS Passport: all data is MS's; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl'sid=01/04/03/1535244&mode=thread; http://www.wired.com/
news/business/0,1367,42811,00.html; http://news.cnet.com/news/0-
1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
--MS bullies customers; http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/
lead032901.htm
--MS buries SQL benchmarks; http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/
xml/01/03/05/010305opcringely.xml
--MS non-compete clauses; http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/
17/2238249&mode=thread
--IE tracking default bookmarks; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=00/09/13/0023213&mode=thread
--MS forces users to pay twice for software; http://news.cnet.com/
news/0-1003-200-2427307.html
--MS IE doesn't follow standards; http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-
200-2254214.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni; http://
www.webstandards.org/ie55.txt
--MS forces will on E-bay; http://www.kuro5hin.org/
?op=displaystory&sid=2000/5/19/165146/255; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=00/05/29/1542223&mode=thread
--MS embrace and extend on Kerberos; http://www.linuxworld.com/
linuxworld/lw-2000-04/lw-04-vcontrol_3.html; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=00/05/02/158204
--MS tries to silence critics; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247
--MS patch breaks Lotus Notes; http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/
0,,s2075190,00.html
--Win2k has problem with standard DNS; http://techupdate.zdnet.com/
techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,1016137,00.html
--MS monopoly essay; http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/25/
1810223&mode=thread
--MS withheld Win95 Y2K patch; http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/
9905/03/fix.y2k.idg/
--MS illegal practices against DR-DOS; http://news.cnet.com/news/
0,10000,0-1003-200-340587.00.html
--Caldera sues MS for anti-competitive practices; http://
techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,1013942,00.html
--MS rigged survey (evidence); http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=99/01/15/0948238&mode=thread
--MS overcharged consumers--Consumer Federation of America; http://
news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1003-200-337138,00.html
--MS sued for stealing mouse design; http://slashdot.org/
article.pl?sid=98/12/16/0950252&mode=thread
--Japan accuses MS of unfair business practices; http://
news.cnet.com/news/0,10000,0-1003-200-335638,00.html
--MS and their competition; http://sanjose.bcentral.com/sanjose/
stories/1998/09/07/story4.html; The Microsoft Files by Wendy Goldman 
Rohm
--Bristol sues MS for anti-competitive practices; http://
infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?980819.wcbristol.htm
--AT&T sues MS over NT licensing; http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/
zdnn_display/0,3440,2112360,00.html
--MS bribes ISPs with free software; http://news.cnet.com/news/
0,10000,0-1003-200-328268,00.html
--MS like monopoly; http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/FredMoody/
moody41.html
--MS buy and convert; http://www.wired.com/news/technology/
0,1282,9701,00.html
--MS steals code for DOS 6.1; Couldn't find a web page about it. But 
ask Microsoft if you could purchase a copy of DOS 6.1. When they say 
``no'', ask them about the court case against them, and the 
settlement where they had to stop selling DOS 6.1.



MTC-00015596

From: rtb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    I'm sending this e-mail to express my displeasure with the 
proposed judgment of the Microsoft anti-trust case being pursued by 
the United States federal government. I believe the judgment phase 
of this case has consistently underestimated Microsoft's destructive 
impact on its competitors and the computer industry in general, as 
well as Microsoft's tendencies to blatantly ignore previous court 
rulings on similar issues. I truly believe that any judgment short 
of breaking up Microsoft will be completely and totally ineffective 
in changing how Microsoft uses its monopoly position to unfairly 
dominate competitors, OEMs and ISVs.

[[Page 26114]]

    Thank you for listening,
    Robert T Bowers



MTC-00015597

From: Barney Evans
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a home owner and a tax payer and computer user, I feel that 
the Microsoft Settlement aka The Tunney Act, is a bad Idea. Please 
log this email as a complaint.
    Barney Evans
    La Mesa, CA



MTC-00015598

From: David Dahl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The Microsoft settlement is, in my opinion, a slap on the wrist. 
Microsoft's business practices have been underhanded and 
illegitimate for as long as I can remember, and this warrants 
stronger measures.
    Microsoft has single-handedly set back computing by many years 
with their buggy, slow, virus-prone, monopoly operating system. In 
fact, almost every time there is a new virus or worm outbreak, it 
only infects Microsoft systems, causing billions of dollars in 
damage and downtime. Microsoft has never paid for this either, and 
it seems to me the public is not aware of this. I still get hits on 
my Linux server (which remains uninfected, of course) for the ``Code 
Red'' and ``Code Blue'' viruses, which Microsoft issued a patch for 
months ago.
    Microsoft is trying to spread unwarranted rumors about Open-
source software and the GNU Public License, which governs much of 
the Open-source world. In my opinion, Open-source software is more 
reliable than anything Microsoft has ever coded, and as a small 
business owner, I rely on these Open-source tools to compete on even 
ground. If i had to buy all of my software for development, I would 
not have a small business because of the costs.
    If Microsoft is given a ``slap on the wrist'', I will really 
fear for the future of computing, Open-source software, and freedom 
to choose which software I use to program products for my clients. 
The proposed settlement will only increase Microsoft's monopoly 
power, and help crush more of the little guys.
    You should not ``Settle'' with Microsoft, you should THROW THE 
BOOK AT THEM.
    Highest Regards,
    David Dahl
    President/Application Developer
    ddahl.com, inc
    http://ddahl.com



MTC-00015599

From: Roy Cromartie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    I wish to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed 
settlement betwen the DOJ and Microsoft corporation. I have reviewed 
the documents available via the web. While I am not a lawyer I must 
comment on the how stricking the proposed remedies are in their 
absence of addressing the core issues of the findings of fact. I can 
see no effective remedy to the misuse of monopoly power that was 
defined in the findings and that has come to catagorize Microsoft. I 
strongly urge the court to deny approval of the remedies as 
presently formulated and require the parties to renegotiate an 
agreement that will address these issues.
    Sincerely,
    Roy Cromartie



MTC-00015601

From: Olson, Lee
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have read the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
case, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. This is a 
vote against the current settlement.
    In my opinion, the settlement should have provisions which open 
the market fairly to competitors of Microsoft and include as few 
loopholes as possible, which Microsoft has abused in the past and 
will continue to abuse in the future. For example, Microsoft should 
not be allowed to penalize OEMs who sell computer systems with 
competing software products.
    Thank you,
    Lee Olson
    2127 29th St NW #11
    Cedar Rapids, IA 52405
    WABTEC CORPORATION



MTC-00015602

From: Domingo Lopez
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Short and sweet.
    The settlement as it stands does nothing to curtail Microsoft's 
monopolistic practices. As a MIS director of a NY Law firm I have 
seen Microsoft drive prizes of software up while quality suffered. 
This settlement seems to perpetuate the situation.
    Just my opinion.
    dll



MTC-00015603

From: Joel Kickbusch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am a software engineer, working in Florida. I have been in the 
software business for ~8 years. I utilize both Microsoft products 
and OS's and non-Microsoft products and OS's. I believe the 
Microsoft Settlement is not in the best interests of consumers, 
capitalism or the United States. There are a number of reasons for 
this, more than I care to list. One of the most egregious oversights 
is that what little protection is afforded only applies to the 
current operating systems. As if Microsoft will never release 
another OS...
    Thanks,
    joel kickbusch



MTC-00015604

From: Jason Richmond
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a BAD idea.



MTC-00015605

From: Denny Givens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    Please do not give microsoft a pass and let them off with a slap 
on the wrist. It is critical that one company not control everything 
with the much ballyhooed digital convergence coming to pass. Please 
do the right thing!
    Denny Givens



MTC-00015606

From: Dave MacDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015607

From: Nate Waisbrot
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I disagree with the proposed final judgment of the Microsoft 
case. The proposed judgment does not adequately protect consumers 
from Microsoft's monopoly.
    The proposed judgment does not require Microsoft to allow OEMs 
to sell computers with a competing operating system but without 
Microsoft Windows. This loophole means that OEMs will continue to 
bundle Microsoft Windows with their products, and consumers who do 
not wish to buy Microsoft Windows (because they use a competing 
operating system exclusively) will be forced to purchase Windows.
    Therefore, I do not believe the Proposed Final Judgement should 
be adopted without substantial revision to address this issue and 
others.
    Sincerely,
    Nathaniel Waisbrot
    Poughkeepsie, NY
    Vassar College student



MTC-00015608

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 26115]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir.
    I am writing in regards to the announced settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
    I have read that settlement does not provide for outside non-
business entities access to the same provisions as business (for 
profit) entities. I believe this is incorrect and does not address 
the core issues of the case. There are many excellent programs and 
services provided by non-profit groups and/or organizations. 
Restricting the terms of the settlement to for profit businesses 
would limit or reduce the ability of the non-profit entities to 
provide inexpensive services and/or products to low-income or 
impoverished areas and people. Since Microsoft has billions in the 
bank, I am sure this does not concern them, but it does concern me.
    Thank You
    Kevin R. Taute



MTC-00015609

From: Scot Baird
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. As it stands, it would allow Microsoft to get 
a larger share of the K-12 education market which it has had a hard 
time doing. Instead of letting Microsoft provide their software 
(including operating system) to the education market they should 
have to provide the actual money and let the education industry 
decide what to do with it. They can still provide the hardware but 
cash instead of software would be a fair punishment.
    The settlement as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue. The Microsoft settlement 
should not be adopted without substantial revision to address this 
problem.
    Sincerely,
    Scot Baird
    Louisville, KY



MTC-00015610

From: Greg Kettmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to see strongly punitive action taken against 
Microsoft and there has been absolutely no indication the government 
is willing to do that.
    Microsoft claims their right to ``innovate'' but this is an 
absurd statement. The result of their efforts is a dramatic 
reduction in innovation. Take Windows itself and the Graphical User 
Interface, that was not a Microsoft ``innovation'' it was stolen 
technology. This list goes on and on. The Microsoft philosophy of 
``embrace and extend'' is a dangerous thing. They find someone elses 
innovation that they like. They incorporate it into their own 
product. Then they subtly change it. Their vast presence assures 
that their changes will be come the defacto standard and the 
original, truly innovative, company goes out of business, thus 
ending any further innovation. This method is being used in the 
browser space as well and it's critical that the web be built on 
open, not proprietary, standards.
    The notion the Microsoft be punished by donating 1 billion in 
used computers and software is rediculous. ``Please don't throw me 
in the briar patch.'' They have 31 Billion Dollars of cash on hand. 
1 Billion is insignificant to them. Even if 1 Billion mattered the 
idea of used equipment and their own software truly dilutes the 
effect. It gives them an opportunity to upgrade their own equipment 
and to promote their software. If I'm not mistaken Bill Gates 
himself has donated at least a Billion Dollars to schools already, 
clearly indicating that this is not a problem to them.
    Finally, the API, or Application Programming Interface, of 
Windows must be truly open, as ordered in a previous trial. A 
standards body, built up of non-Microsoft professionals skilled in 
programming, should oversee the API implementations. This should 
help reduce planned API changes designed to disrupt the competition 
(As Microsoft did with IBM's OS/2). Furthermore any ``undocumented'' 
API's found to be used by Microsoft Products such as Office should 
be met with a heavy fine. Clearly such ability to use features of 
the OS unavailable to others gives Microsoft and unfair advantage.



MTC-00015611

From: Paul Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the current proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Antitrust case would not effectively deal with Microsoft's 
anticompetitive behaviour. As a software engineer who has worked in 
the computer field for about 8 years, I have been a first hand 
witness to Microsoft's behaviour. I have no doubt that Microsoft has 
set back the computer industry countless years through their 
anticompetitive practices.
    I tend to be of the opinion that splitting Microsoft 3 ways (or 
possibly more) is the best way to deal with the problem, while still 
allowing those companies that form from the breakup good, solid 
business oppotunities with competitors on equal footing. Although 
this would have been a win-win situation for Microsoft, its 
competitors, and especially the consumors, I have been sorry to hear 
that it was taken off the table for possibilities.
    There are too many problems with this proposed settlement to 
list hear.
    It doesn't punish them really, and in fact gives them better 
opportunity for worse anticompetitive practices in the future. It's 
no wonder that Microsoft is eager to accept this settlement. Either 
we can fix the problem now, and fix it right, or we will continually 
have to revisit these and more problems with Microsoft in the 
future. Please, for the sake of consumers and businesses alike, DO 
NOT accept the current settlement with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Larson



MTC-00015612

From: Jerry Heyman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Settlement objections
    I'm a little confused here with the settlement. The judge ruled 
that Microsoft acted (and continues to act) in with a monopolistic 
nature, and none of the remedies proposed seem to punish/temper 
these behaviors.
    First objection has to do with who Microsoft has to disclose the 
the information to (Section III.D): ISV, IHV, IAP, ICP, and OEM--
where does it include the Open Software movement? The Samba project 
(www.samba.org) is he most successful Open Software compatibility 
product in the world, and based on the wording-- they will not be 
able to get the necessary information to continue their 
compatibility.
    Section III.H.3:
    According to my reading, after 14 days, Microsoft can have the 
system revert to its pristine, Microsoft designed, interface with a 
simple query to the user. Does it also provide for a return back if 
the user uses the system for 14 days, decides to try Microsoft's 
version--and doesn't like it and wants to return to what they had 
when they first purchased the machine? Many people like to 
experiment--but they like to be able to go back to the original if 
the new doesn't meet their needs.
    Section III.J.1:
    Security issues. Since Microsoft itself cannot yet determine 
what parts of the Windows Operating System have security issues (see 
the latest MAJOR problem with Windows XP), how does this agreement 
stop Microsoft from making the security claim on almost any part of 
the Windows product?
    Section V.B:
    If Microsoft fails to live up to the agreement, the penalty is 
that they have to live with agreement for another two years? I'm 
confused--that is considered a penalty? If a felon is paroled, and 
violates parole, the parole isn't then extended for two more years--
the individual goes back to prison. Why is this different?
    Sincerely,
    Jerrold Heyman



MTC-00015613

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justices--
    Previously, I have always been in Microsoft's corner of this 
debate as I have believed this suit was initially devised and 
supported by Sun Microsystems. However, after reading Scott 
Rosenberg's column in Salon.com about how well AMD and Intel have 
competed, I have changed my mind. It is time to force Microsoft to 
release the API's of its operating system. While it will complain 
that the API's constitiute its ``intellectual property'', I have now 
come to the point where I believe that's bunk. If Microsoft wants to 
focus its efforts on the best operating system (Windows), then split 
the company with all the software applications being a new company 
and let Windows concentrate on systems. However, if you leave the 
applications and the operating systems together, then I have to 
agree that Microsoft has a monopoly and the

[[Page 26116]]

marketplace will not be adequately served in the future by it 
remaining intact. Just one person's opinion.
    Respectfully,
    Bret Cullers



MTC-00015614

From: Darren Young
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft settlement will only hurt the country and 
computer industry. They have not become a huge company from hard 
work but by cheating other companies and people. You can change 
history for the better.
    Darren



MTC-00015615

From: Baker, Kevin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement does not adequately address the wrongs 
that Microsoft was convicted for.
    Kevin Baker



MTC-00015616

From: Jason Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is insufficient. It does not correctly 
address the issues at hand.



MTC-00015617

From: Tim Wallace
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement of the DOJ suit against 
Microsoft. Although Microsoft claims that they have innovated, those 
of us more intimately aware of the truth are not fooled. In fact, 
they have squashed far more innovative competitors with the kind of 
illegal actions of which they have been found guilty. Even worse, 
they have lowered accepted standards of reliability greatly, with 
the result being tremendous loss of productivity internationally as 
their operating systems crash and are compromised by numerous 
viruses. Any settlement needs to prevent Microsoft from continuing 
on this path of anti-competitive behavior. The proposed settlement 
seems far too weak to accomplish this necessary goal.
    Timothy P. Wallace, PhD
    3 Hilda Rd.
    Bedford, MA 01730



MTC-00015618

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ,
    I think the proposed Microsoft Settlement is a travesty. With 
the recent news that Microsoft has cardboard kiosks in Posts Offices 
around the country, and that US Postal employees are actually 
helping promote their products, I can't help but think the large 
amount of soft money donations they've made has helped them purchase 
a slap on the hand. They are laughing at you, and this country. If I 
was the CEO of Microsoft, I'd be laughing at you.
    Best Regards,
    S.A.Wilson
    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in Plain English
    http://pineight.evilpigeon.net/rant/dmca/



MTC-00015619

From: Gregory Slayton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge:
    I am very concerned about the proposed settlement that the 
Department of Justice has recommended in the Microsoft case. As a 
long-time industry veteran, it seems to me that MS has long 
established its reputation as an abusive monopolist--and the courts 
certainly agreed with this. Why should MS be left virtually scott-
free to continue to abuse its defacto monopoly in Operating Systems? 
If you take a close look at their Passport concept it is very clear 
that they are planning to expand their monopoly well beyond the 
desktop but into every corner of the American economic system. While 
I don't blame them for trying to do this--they're just trying to 
maximize their millions (or should I say billions)...it is incumbant 
upon our government to protect its citizens and offer all 
competitors an open and level playing field. Thank you for your help 
in this important matter.
    Sincerely,
    B. Floyd
    78247
    4802 Roxton Ave
    San Antonio, TX



MTC-00015620

From: Ernst, Ian (GEAE)
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional in the programming industry, and as a degreed 
computer scientist, I must comment on the anti-competitive actions 
of Microsoft. Repeated Microsoft has acted to thwart competition by 
leveraging it's various products in monopolistic ways which violate 
current laws. This practice has been, at times, creative and most 
certainly profitable. While this profit-taking, at the expense of 
the American public, has harmed them financially. The real damage 
has been committed on a fundamentally scientific level. Research 
into programming areas incompatible with Microsoft's operating 
system products is discouraged because of the barriers of entry to 
introduce products based on such research. Furthermore, Microsoft 
has proven that software quality is immaterial. Many times, they 
have release software which is clearly, and embarrassingly, lacking 
in even the most basic security features. Now that a significant 
portion of the infrastructure of American society is based upon 
these products, we are all at risk of the exploitation of these 
security flaws.
    A fair settlement would:
    1) repay the American public for their financial harm
    2) allow the American public to access, modify and correct this 
essential part of our infrastructure (Windows operating systems, 
Windows Explorer and Windows office file formats) by publishing 
application interfaces (APIs) and source code for these products. 
Microsoft has worked diligently to assure that we use their products 
exclusively and have marginalized the profitability of those who 
compete with them.
    Now, we must act to assure that our computing infrastructure is 
secure, stable and a foundation for our future society.
    Sincerely,
    Ian Ernst
    Disclaimer:
    I am speaking for myself and not my employer.
    Ian Ernst
    [email protected]
    GE Aircraft Engines
    One Neumann Way MD-BBC7
    Cincinnati, OH 45215-1988
    Voice, Vmail 513 243 9226
    Fax 513 243 8338



MTC-00015621

From: S. Vikram
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I have been following the Microsoft Antitrust lawsuit from 
almost the beginning, and as a user who is well versed with both 
Windows as well as Unix systems, I didn't have much of a pre-
conceived notion about the entire issue. I must say, however, that 
as I read through all the evidence presented at the trial (I 
actively followed the case), it became increasingly obvious to me 
that Microsoft had stifled innovation and the true entrepreneurial 
spirit. I was also convinced (by the clinical way in which they have 
constantly refused to do anything at all to correct their behaviour 
when it wasn't in their interest) that small companies with good 
ideas are doomed if a monopoly like Microsoft is allowed to persist. 
The latest settlement falls so short of curtailing their anti 
competetive behaviour, that I don't even know where to start. Having 
worked for long enough in the Silicon valley, I know the kind of 
thinking and the reasons behind the numerous lawsuits filed there 
for and against infringements of all kinds, as well as the reason 
why some of them are routinely flouted. Typically this occurs when 
the rewards are so much greater than the punishment for not 
complying with the law. I think in the present case, it is a 
foregone conclusion that the settlement is at best only a minor 
irritant, rather than a guide to good behaviour on the part of 
microsoft. I therefore request you to seriously reconsider the 
settlement, so that the true nature of innovation might not suffer.
    yours sincerely,
    S. Vikram.



MTC-00015622

From: CJ Kucera
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:

[[Page 26117]]

    I am writing to express my displeasure at the current state of 
the proposed Microsft antitrust settlement. I feel that, in its 
current state, the settlement does not adequately address the 
problems of Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. There are so many 
loopholes that it would be trivial for Microsoft to continue the 
kinds of activities that got it into this situation in the first 
place. Please consider this message to be a vote AGAINST the 
proposed settlement. Specifically, there are problems with the 
definition of ``API'' that render most of the propositions dealing 
with APIs to be useless. Microsoft uses licensing schemes to 
specifically restrict the use of Open Source systems, which is not 
addressed in the settlement at all. The problem of Microsoft using 
OEMs to conrol the market is addressed, but doesn't cover several 
avenues of activity that Microsoft could use to continue its 
behavior. The list goes on.
    Thank you for taking the time to read this message.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher J. Kucera
    [email protected]
    Green Bay, WI



MTC-00015623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding of 
fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of structures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015624

From: Jon Reades
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my concern over the proposed terms of 
settlement for the Microsoft antitrust trial. Based on my 
understanding of the proposed terms of settlement, it seems clear to 
me that Microsoft will remain to free to both stamp out competition 
and extend its existing monopoly into new software segments. My 
objections to the current proposed settlement fall into three broad 
categories:
    1. Disclosure of existing APIs: the API disclosure terms appear 
to create financial and IP barriers that will prevent developers for 
what is currently Microsoft's *only* viable competition on the Intel 
platform (I speak, obviously, of the Linux operating system) from 
developing applications and products that are able to compete with 
Microsoft's own. The definition of Middleware and Middleware Product 
allow Microsoft not only to arbitrarily evade the intent of the 
disclosure agreement through the use of alternate distribution 
channels (e.g. downloading) and restrictive EULAs (such as the ones 
that do not allow Microsoft products to be used either a) on a non-
Microsoft platform, or b) in conjunction with open source or shared 
source software products), but it also neglects to include the key 
underpinnings of Microsoft's extant monopoly maintained in large 
part through products such as Office and Outlook.
    2. Disclosure of new APIs: the settlement would also do nothing 
to keep Microsoft from extending its Windows monopoly into new 
arenas via both its .NET initiative and its handheld and tablet-
based computing initiatives. None of these are covered by the terms 
of the settlement, but it is clear from Microsoft's own marketing 
that they consider these areas to be crucial to their long term 
strategy.
    If Microsoft comes to dominate the market for Internet-based 
services then not only will we have an important piece of the public 
infrastructure that is, again, dominated by a single corporation 
instead of a large body of competing companies cooperating through 
the auspices of a standards setting body, but it will be a piece of 
infrastructure bound to a single platform and operating system that 
has consistently demonstrated its disregard for both 
interoperability and security (see: Code Red, I Love You, Nimda 
...).
    3. Licensing terms: the proposed settlement does nothing to 
protect anyone other than the largest 20 OEMs from retaliatory 
methods by Microsoft-- schools, state and local governments, mid- to 
large-size companies, and so on down.
    Nothing prevents Microsoft from insisting that these bodies pay 
for the number of processors that theoretically *could* run Windows, 
nor from creating pricing schemes that lock out competing operating 
systems (such as has already been documented by Microsoft's new 
licensing terms in which the primary means of securing their best 
pricing schema is to promise never to use another operating system).
    In addition, Microsoft would be able to construct pricing 
mechanisms that, while not directly affecting the pricing of 
Windows, would create incentives for OEMs to not supply additional 
OS options to consumers--discounts could be applied on the basis of 
sales of a different product such as Office (again!) or their Tablet 
OS.
    In short, I strongly urge the U.S. government to return to the 
negotiating table with a more stringent and coherent set of demands 
that will force Microsoft to open their operating system to 
competitors (who might work for corporations such as Sun or Apple, 
or who might be involved in the open source movement) in a way that 
will foster competition *not* through cosmetic changes (adding or 
removing icons from the desktop, for instance) but through 
interoperability that enables both non-Microsoft applications to 
interact effectively (i.e. to have the same access to the API as the 
MS applications teams) with the Windows OS, and non-Microsoft 
operating systems to interact effectively with Microsoft 
applications.
    I am not proposing that Microsoft be forced to give away Word, 
Excel, or Visio (each of which does certain things very well), but I 
am proposing that they be forced to both a) make available the file 
formats of these industry-leading applications in a way that would 
enable competitors to arise, and b) that the APIs be published in a 
way that would enable competitors to support these applications on 
their own operating system implementations. Then, Microsoft would be 
forced to have both its applications and its operating system 
compete on their own merits (they're faster, more stable, respond 
more quickly, etc.) rather than on the basis of ``Well, we really 
don't have any other choice since everyone else uses ...'' Unless 
the proposed settlement is significantly strengthened I would 
predict that in less than ten years we'll be reading about another 
Microsoft anti-trust trial in the news, but by that time it will be 
too late to create competition in *any* of the fields that really 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    jon reades



MTC-00015625

From: Corey Dubin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it may concern:
    I do not believe the proposed settlement of the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit will be effective. The main reason I feel this way 
is because of the restriction the Proposed Final Judgment places on 
the use of released documentation. What I mean specifically is that 
if I am trying to write a piece of code to be compatible or to 
emulate certain Windows functionality I am not allowed to use the 
information Microsoft releases as part of the settlement. Now how is 
this helpful to encourage competition? Furthermore it seems to me 
that it would necessitate a split between developer teams working on 
Microsoft solutions and the team working on non-Microsoft solutions. 
In effect this to me seems like retaliation against companies 
developing for non-Microsoft solutions. Because of this Microsoft 
will continue it monopolistic behavior.
    Corey Dubin
    Network Administrator
    Hyper Active, inc.
    6221 Riverside Drive
    Dublin, OH 43017



MTC-00015626

From: David Harris
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26118]]

Date: 1/23/02  9:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am concerned that the tentative settlement between the DOJ and 
Microsoft, in its current form, is not going to be sufficient to 
keep Microsoft from continuing its abuses of monopoly power.
    See http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for a list of 
concerns with this proposed settlement; I believe it raises some 
excellent points which merit review.
    Yours,
    David Harris
    [email protected]
    5005 W. Frances Pl
    Austin, TX 78731



MTC-00015627

From: Leif
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement seems not to make adequate reparations to 
those competitors damaged by Microsoft's business practices. 
Furthermore, (and worse, in my mind), the settlement makes no 
significant provisions to prevent similar behavior in the future. 
This is short-sighted, to say the least.
    As it stands, the settlement proposal is very disappointing, and 
I would encourage its rejection.
    Leif Brown
    2910 Hampton Road
    Austin, Texas 78705-3210



MTC-00015628

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to protest the current propsed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case. This is a bad deal for the consumer and 
for the software industry.
    In specific, I don't believe that the current proposal provides 
adequate reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies 
have ceased to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's 
business practices. Neither does this settlement further the goal of 
preventing similar abuses in the future. Even after being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not 
changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition.
    Sincerely,
    Mary S. AtKisson
    590 Main Street
    Millis MA 02054



MTC-00015629

From: Mark Lenz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read over the proposed Microsoft Settlement, and am NOT 
in favor of it, in its current state. The settlement does not, in 
any way, penalize Microsoft for its past infringements of the law. 
Microsoft has been declared guilty of past wrongs, and must now be 
held accountable in some measure. The current proposed settlement is 
unacceptable. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Lenz
    2114 South Schaefer Street
    Apartment 1
    Appleton, Wisconsin 54915



MTC-00015630

From: Tom Janofsky
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a small business owner in the software development field, I 
am writing to you to express my opposition to the proprosed 
Microsoft settlement. I don't believe that the penalties imposed 
provide enough punishment in regards to illegal acts commited, nor 
do I think that the proposed remedy provides a strong enough 
deterent for future illegal behavior.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Janofsky
    Tom Janofsky Consulting
    880 N Bucknell St
    Philadelphia PA 19130
    [email protected]



MTC-00015631

From: Dale Mensch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed DOJ settlement because there 
appears to be no protection from past Microsoft practices that could 
harm Linux and other open source projects. I rely on this software 
for my consulting business and greatly fear that they will become 
difficult or impossible if Microsoft continues in the business 
fashion that started the antitrust proceedings.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015632

From: Jeff None
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Also, Microsoft has used its 
dominence to interfer with software that has been legally installed 
on its customer's machines. It was an axiom in the early 1990s that 
``DOS was not done until Lotus would not run.'' Microsoft also used 
its install programs to interfer with other operating system 
installs on the computer. I have personally experienced this with DR 
DOS and IBM's OS/2.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Microsoft needs to be split into at least two separate 
companies, with all technical communication between the two taking 
placed through publically available documentation, to insure that it 
no longer takes advantage of undocumented programming features that 
are not readily available to its competitors. Even after being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not 
changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition. Microsoft entered into a consent decree with 
the DoJ in, I believe, 1993, and prompty violated the terms of the 
decree and suffered no penalty for doing so. It is clear that the 
company has little regard for legal restrictions upon its behaviour, 
or for the governmental bodies charged with ensuring that 
compliance.
    Microsoft's abuse of its position has harmed the entire 
computing industry. Prices are higher and competing alternatives are 
fewer. I say this as a professional programmer with more than 12 
year's industry experience. I do no tmind seeing products and 
companies disappear due to mismanagement and such, but it distresses 
me when it is due to abusive and illegal practices of a dominent 
firm.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015633

From: Tod Milam
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    I do not believe the measures are strong enough to encourage 
competition and prevent Microsoft from continuing their anti-
competitive practices. One specific example is in section III.2:
    ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System; or'' where 
Microsoft is to be prevented from retaliating against OEMs who ship 
non-Microsoft Operating Systems in addition to Windows Operating 
Systems.
    As written, this does not stop Microsoft from retaliating 
against an OEM who ships some Personal Computers with Windows 
Operating Systems and some other Personal Computers with a single 
non-Microsoft Operating System. The wording is too restrictive. Any 
OEM who wants to ship a Windows Operating System with any of their 
Personal Computers to ship it with *all* of their Personal Computers 
so that they avoid any retaliation by Microsoft. This completely 
undermines the original intent of the settlement.
    There are many more similar items in the settlement, but even 
one should be enough to stop this from being accepted as the final 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Tod Milam
    Software Engineer

[[Page 26119]]

    League City, Texas



MTC-00015634

From: Arnold Hayden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    In regards to the proposed settlement of the US vs. Microsoft 
antitrust settlement, I believe that it is NOT in the best interest 
of our nation to go forward with the settlement. I believe that the 
settlement does nothing to correct the case that was proven against 
Microsoft. The settlement weakly puts into place safeguards that try 
to prevent further abuse. These safeguards are so weak and easily 
manipulated that Microsoft could litigate any possible opposition it 
wanted into the ground until stopping any infringement was too late. 
If an oversite committee has any way of enforcing any settlement 
against Microsoft, it needs real power.
    Furthermore, the settlement does nothing to restitute the 
victims of Microsoft's actions. The net worth of Microsoft, 
including their 30 someodd billion dollars in liquid funds, is all 
blood money. This is a company that was built by unlawfully bullying 
other companies out of a market. Careers and lives were destroyed 
over the abuses that were upheald against Microsofts, and these 
wrongs should not go uncorrected any longer. Allowing such 
restitutions up to the civil courts only allows Microsoft to use 
their political and financial power, most of which was built upon 
lies and felonies, to be used to rob the victims once more. I ask 
for a complete re-evaluation of the proposed settlement. Microsoft 
must be held accountable for their actions. Microsoft has already 
violated my trust. Hopefully the Department of Justice and the 
Supreme Court won't do the same.
    Arnold Hayden
    Computer Science undergraduate
    University of Texas at Austin



MTC-00015635

From: Ben Laakso
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement is a bad idea, and gives 
big business the wrong idea.
    ben



MTC-00015636

From: Immordino, Sam
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the current proposed settlement is a bad idea. I have no 
affiliation with any of the players in the case. As a consumer I 
have spent many long nights trying to make software such as Quattro 
Pro, Lotus, and others work in MS Windows. It was blatantly obvious 
to me that Microsoft was not going out of its way to make sure these 
competitive programs worked in its OS. The solution to this problem 
is very simple.
    First, Microsoft should not be allowed to incorporate/bundle any 
software into its OS that is not absolutely necessary to operate the 
computer. Any other software packages such as Virus Protection, 
Firewalls, Browsers, Music Players, etc should be sold separately. 
Microsoft still gets to innovate and the consumers can choose what 
they want added to their OS. Second, Microsoft should not be allowed 
to include any code that either directly or indirectly prevents 
competitive software from working with their OS. Third, Microsoft 
should not be allowed to create proprietary file formats for the 
sole purpose of maintaining their market share; this behavior does 
not benefit the consumer.
    Best Regards,
    Sam Immordino
    USG Corp. Research and Technology Center
    700 North Highway 45
    Libertyville, IL 60048-1296
    Tel: (847) 970-5140
    Fax: (847) 970-5299
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00015637

From: Steve Anichini
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I've been a professional software engineer for 8 years, and by 
professional necessity I am very familiar with Microsoft's actions 
over that period. I feel that when Microsoft relies soley on its 
technical prowress to compete, it helps the industry. The fact is 
too often Microsoft falls upon questionable legal and business 
tactics, and this hurts the industry. I feel the proposed settlement 
does not go far enough to deal with the latter. Specific issues that 
have affected me and the companies I've worked for: Microsoft 
discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source applications: the 
following license terms accompany many Microsoft APIs and 
programming toolkits (for example, the Microsoft Platform SDK, the 
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder SDK, and the Microsoft X-Box SDK): 
``... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); ...'' This language, whether or not it actually 
prohibits the use of Open Source software with various Windows 
components, produces a chilling effect with the various corporate 
legal departments of companies I've worked for--they don't want to 
take the risk of a lawsuit and just blanket prohibit using Open 
Source.
    When working for a company that was entering a business 
relationship directly with Microsoft, we were told straight out that 
the product we were developing could not include any Open Source 
technology and it could not use Sun's Java technology. Microsoft was 
just one of the many partners we worked with, and Open Source and 
Java were key elements of the technology we were working with. 
Removing these elements would have caused great expense to the 
company without compensation. As a result, the part of the deal 
which dependend on Java (an interactive CD-ROM product) was 
cancelled. The company in question laid off 95% of its staff soon 
after.
    I think Microsoft should be prohibited from discouraging/
prohibiting use of competitor's products with Microsoft's products.
    I think that the settlement needs to be expanded to force 
Microsoft to give up all its Windows APIs and file formats (Word, 
Excel) to some standardizing body. Patents that these technologies 
depend upon should be freely licensible. These formats and APIs 
should become public property--when this happens, competition can 
emerge for things such as Office on a more level playing field. 
Microsoft will still remain competitive in such an environment, but 
this will allow others to use this information to compete with 
Microsoft and keep it honest.
    Steve Anichini



MTC-00015638

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that the settlement offered by the 9 
states and the DOJ is wholly inadequate to solve the Monopoly 
Microsoft holds on the software market. Unless there is something 
done to level the playing field and penalize Microsoft for what it 
has unlawful gained, then what is the whole point of this trail? 
Nothing in that settlement accomplished this. I do feel the 
remaining 9 states settlement offer is a more substantial remedy.
    Rather than go into great detail, I refer to the following 
articles, which I feel speak from my personal perspective:
    http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    Thanks
    Chris Davis



MTC-00015639

From: John Lusk
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement is too lenient; Microsoft will not 
be prevented from unfairly using its monopoly position to stifle 
competition.
    For open-source software (free software), the price of 
distributing that software will be determined by accumulated license 
fees, which can add up fast. This helps Microsoft by effectively 
raising the price of competing software.
    More of Microsoft's APIs, protocols and file formats should be 
opened, royalty-free.

[[Page 26120]]

    You should REJECT the proposed final judgement.
    Thank you.
    John Lusk
    ([email protected] mailto:[email protected]> , 
[email protected]
    mailto:[email protected]>)



MTC-00015640

From: May, David (DW)
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as is is completely wrong. Many people's lives 
were RUINED because of Microsoft's actions. By one company's action, 
the progress in computer technology has been set back by 
generations. They should be required to pay something.
    Regards,
    David W. May
    [email protected]
    Office: 713-647-4302
    Cell: 713-480-5579
    Fax: 713-647-4521



MTC-00015641

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is poorly thought out result 
of years of litigation by the US government, that will do little if 
anything to modify the company's past flagrant behavior in violation 
of federal antitrust regulations.
    The purpose of antitrust remedies is to allow competition to 
flourish in a marketplace. Consider three components that comprise 
significant barriers to effective competition in the US operating 
system marketplace, which I will discuss below:
    1. Compatible file formats.
    2. Application availability/compatibility.
    3. Network level interoperability.

Compatible file formats

    Due to the dual lock Microsoft has on the market for both the 
operating system and office software, their file formats are used as 
standards for interchange of data. This is both internal to a 
company, and for interchange between companies.
    Even if a company is willing to change its internal file formats 
(itself a major expense), it must still be able to communicate and 
exchange data with other companies. This is a severe lock-in which 
produces very strong resistance to change.
    If Microsoft was required to publish complete and correct file 
formats for its software products, it would contribute to a 
significant lowering of the barrier to competition (but not 
sufficient of itself, see below). This matter is not addressed 
effectively by anything in the proposed settlement.

Application level compatibility

    Consider a company that had sufficient skill available to 
develop an operating system in competition with Microsoft, perhaps 
based off of a base set of source code that is commonly available. 
It develops a set of user interfaces that, while not identical to 
the Microsoft equivalents, is close enough to shorten the learning 
curve for new users.
    That in itself is a significant piece of work. However, it is 
not sufficient because most of the use of an operating system is to 
run applications that allow users to get their daily work done. 
Providing a set of run-alike applications is an unreasonable burden 
on a company attempting to compete on the operating system level.
    If the company had enough information to ensure that 
applications written for another operating system would run on the 
new operating system, then this would allow users to contemplate 
switching while still retaining the applications they are familiar 
with.
    Application level interoperability requires compatibility in the 
application programming interfaces (APIs) provided to application 
programmers by the operating system. While the proposed settlement 
does provide for release of some APIs, the wording of the settlement 
and loopholes provided make it insufficient to ensure complete, 
correct, and timely publishing of APIs.

Network level interoperability

    Few companies will carry out a major migration project at the 
level of replacing the operating system on every computer used in 
the company. This makes it very important that a new operating 
system be able to communicate effectively with any incumbent 
operating system, on matters such as identification, authentication, 
and data transfer.
    The proposed settlement does require that network protocols be 
release to allow system interoperability, but with the large 
loophole that security or copy protection be excluded. Correct 
security implementations do not depend upon details of the 
algorithms involved (consider past and upcoming federal encryption 
standards). Instead security is maintained using one of a number of 
varieties of secret data, which are individual to a particular 
system or network, and not provided by Microsoft.
    The language of the proposal could allow Microsoft to hold back 
important parts of their network protocols under the security 
provision, denying other operating systems access to identification 
and/or authentication by the protocols in use on a network primarily 
populated by systems (especially servers) running Microsoft 
operating systems and network protocols.
    The settlement should provide severe restrictions on what type 
of protocol information Microsoft may not release, and that should 
not be anything as general as ``security information''.
    In summary, the proposed settlement will do little to restrict 
Microsoft's behavior, or to encourage effective competition in the 
US operating system marketplace. Microsoft has repeatedly 
demonstrated that it will do anything necessary to dominate its 
marketplace, including violation of US law. If the settlement is not 
effective, then the company will have little reason to comply with 
US law in the future, as it will appear that the cost of violating 
the law does not exceed the benefits of maintaining and extending 
their monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    John Schwegler
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00015642

From: Alen Peacock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd just like to add my voice to those expressing concerns 
regarding the proposed Microsoft settlement, as per the Tunney Act.
    I am against the proposed settlement.
    The proposed settlement:
    1) does not contain sufficiently defined language to prevent 
Microsoft from exploiting those definitions (``API'', ``Microsoft 
Middleware'', etc).
    2) does nothing to give redress to Microsoft's current main 
competitor, namely Linux and other free software, nor does it give 
appropriate protection or means of recourse to companies built 
around free software against Microsoft's continuing anti-competitive 
practices.
    3) provides insufficient stimulus for Microsoft to comply with 
the current, flawed settlement, and in fact gives Microsoft further 
advantage against competitors even if they don't comply.
    For these and a host of other reasons, I encourage the court and 
the parties involved to rethink the proposed settlement. Microsoft 
has been found guilty. Justice requires that a fair price be paid.
    Alen Peacock
    Billerica, Massachusetts



MTC-00015643

From: Aaron Luttman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings and Salutations,
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement for two simple 
reasons. The first is that is does nothing to rectify the situation. 
In fact, if Microsoft is required to donate software, the justice 
department will actually be INCREASING THEIR CLIENT BASE. That is 
supposed to curb unfair competition?
    Secondly, it does nothing to punish them. It INCREASES THEIR 
CLIENT BASE. That is GREAT news for Microsoft. They will more than 
make up the cost of giving away their software when they sell the 
upgrades that the schools will need.
    I think that the ``Red Hat Proposal'' is best. Require Microsoft 
to furnish hardware to schools, and let Red Hat supply the software 
(which is open source and therefore FREE anyway). That way schools 
will be able to upgrade at will to keep up with the times, without 
worrying about having to pay for the upgrades.
    Aaron Luttman



MTC-00015644

From: Brad Hoyle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is still up to its old tricks and doesn't intend on 
letting any company deliver an innovative competitive product. Take 
in point the legal action Microsoft has taken against Linux 
distributor ``Lindows''.

[[Page 26121]]

This product is using an open source operating system that could run 
some Microsoft applications. Microsoft is arguing based on trade 
mark infringement and I cant tell for the life of me how they can 
justify this. I admit that Windows and Lindows rhyme but that's it. 
If your a user that cant discern the difference between the two you 
most likely do not use a PC at all. I want more choice! I want more 
software security! Its up to the Federal Government to make this 
happen.
    Than You
    Brad Hoyle



MTC-00015645

From: Shad Gregory
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement is does not do 
enough to protect the public interest and competition in the IT 
market. In particular, I feel that it is critical to force MS to 
share information concerning the Windows family of operating 
systems. A fair settlement would induce Microsoft to license it's 
Windows code to outside companies under fair conditions set by the 
govenment. This will allow consumers a wider choice for operating 
systems as well as acting as a check on Microsoft's attempts to 
force unfair licensing practices on its customers.
    Whatever the remedies proposed, they will be meaningless if the 
government is not given the ability to punish Microsoft if they do 
not conform to the settlement. I see little in the settlement in the 
way of punitive measures.
    Thank you for your time,
    Shad Gregory



MTC-00015646

From: Brian Mason
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I am truly concerned about the proposed settlement in the 
current Microsoft anti-trust case. As a professional web developer I 
deal daily with high tech and the business environment, and am 
appalled at the lack of choice in the current desktop environment. 
Not only is the current situation not competitive, but the future of 
many new niches in the industry are in the sway due to Microsoft's 
new drive to bundle technology with Windows XP. I have purchased 
Windows XP, not because I feel it is a good product or because I 
want to support a company who makes good software, but because of 
Microsoft's desktop monopoly it is the product I will have to 
develop for in the future. The range of bundled Microsoft products, 
and the blatantly misleading and repetitive ``suggestions'' to sign 
up for further Microsoft services is absolutely amazing, and 
honestly leaves me more than a little concerned for the future of 
choice in personal computing. If given the opportunity Microsoft 
will leverage their current desktop monopoly to extend this reach 
into every high tech field they see as being potentially profitable 
in the future.
    The settlement as proposed by the DOJ at this point does nothing 
to actively stop Microsoft from anti-competitive behavior in the 
future, and seem to lack any real way to hold Microsoft accountable 
for their actions. Any ruling must look not only to the past but to 
the future--Windows XP and beyond. Without very strict and 
enforceable regulations guiding the behavior of this acknowledged 
monopolist, the American people will have even less choice than they 
do now. I appeal to you as an American citizen to allow competition 
to flourish--please do not allow this settlement to go through.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Mason
    Image Mason Design
    P.O. Box 174
    Hinesburg, VT 05461
    (802) 482-6740
    [email protected]



MTC-00015647

From: Ed Ackerman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Ed Ackerman
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015648

From: Mike S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a user of an alternative operating system I believe I am 
among those who have the most to lose if Microsoft is allowed to 
continue their anti-competitive practices.
    The settlement, as proposed, is worded in such a way that gives 
Microsoft many opportunities to circumvent any barriers placed on 
their business practices. Microsoft has done this once before with 
the 1995 consent decree and based on their attitude throughout these 
legal proceedings I have no doubt that they will do it again.
    Microsoft must not be allowed to continue using their monopoly 
power to create pseudo standards based only on the fact that 
anything they do is rapidly distributed to 95% of the computing 
populace.
    Open Standards must be maintained in order to allow people, like 
myself and the millions of other non-Windows OS users, to have 
access to the latest technologies and software applications.
    Please do not let Microsoft leave with only their word and a 
loophole laden document to ensure they will change their ways, doing 
so would be a travesty of justice in this citizens eyes.
    Michael Silverman
    Plantation, FL



MTC-00015649

From: Harlan Rosenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Too Many Loopholes
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am a computer programmer with 22 years of experience in the 
field, using both Microsoft and non-Microsoft products. In the past 
few months I have read numerous documents and discussions of the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case. My reaction is 
simple:
    This settlement is too lenient, and is too easy for Microsoft to 
escape.
    My personal focus is standards. Microsoft has a history of 
``embrace and extend'' which renders industry standards useless, and 
renders any product which actually conforms to the standard 
similarly useless. In the physical world, people would never buy a 
product that was nonstandard; would anyone buy a battery that was 
too short, or a light bulb with a different base? And how often 
would people change their light sockets? However, with software that 
is (a) not clearly understood by most people, (b) easily updated yet 
difficult to revert, and (c) updated ``automatically'' rather than 
through user understanding and selection, Microsoft has been able to 
make it appear that their unilateral changes to the standards 
constitute a new ``de facto'' standard *without* sharing that 
information either before *or* after the fact.
    A simple and well-known example: Microsoft made their web 
browser accept forward slashes mixed with backward slashes in a 
particular command, where the standard calls for only one or the 
other. They said this was an enhancement permitting handling of 
``incorrect'' pages; they even made the browser display the original 
text ``corrected'' if one asked to view the source. Then the next 
release of their web development tools used mixed slashes in that 
command. Of course, the pages produced worked fine with the 
Microsoft browser, but would fail on any other browser. And when 
users and developers tried to view the source, IT LOOKED CORRECT due 
to the browser change, even though it failed to comply with the 
standard. So not only did they break the rules, they DELIBERATELY 
CONCEALED that breaking of rules, in a way calculated to make other 
products seem to be at fault. As

[[Page 26122]]

I understand the settlement, all Microsoft has to do to escape its 
terms is change their nomenclature and/or numbering scheme and 
announce something as a ``new and improved product'', and it will be 
exempt from the restrictions on ``existing and previous'' products. 
This is much too weak. They also get to continue weaving 
applications and operating system together into one big morass, 
which lowers the quality and generality of both. The industry needs 
something more like the consent decree placed on IBM years ago, 
forcing complete separation of the operating system and applications 
development.
    Truly yours,
    Harlan Rosenthal



MTC-00015650

From: Larry Norris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement with Microsoft is not only a bad idea, it could 
possibly make the situation even worse. Letting Microsoft get off 
the hook buy letting them further spread their monopoly (giving away 
copies to schools) is stupid.
    An actual settlement would involve something Microsoft would 
have to do that would benefit their competitors, not them. Microsoft 
has and is still acting like a monopoly (just try and get a computer 
from Dell, Gateways, etc.. without Windows). They have done severe 
damage to the computer industry and the penalty must in turn, be 
severe.



MTC-00015651

From: Thaddeus J. Beier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir,
    I've made my life writing computer applications for the last 
twenty-five years, and feel that I have to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Department of Justice, several of the states, 
and Microsoft. It must not stand. I was very encouraged to see Judge 
Jackson's findings of fact and findings of law. While I wish that he 
had emphasized the Netscape aspect of the case a little more fully, 
it was clear that Judge Jackson found that Microsoft had violated 
the law, repeatedly, and without remorse--to the significant cost of 
the American people. As you no doubt know, these findings of fact 
and findings of law are still in place, Microsoft's appeal of these 
findings has failed utterly.
    The proposed settlement before you is, simply, a travesty. It 
does nothing, or next to nothing, to ameliorate the massive 
abrogations of the antitrust laws that Microsoft perpetrated over 
the last few years, since the previous agreement with the Justice 
Department was made. Microsoft has in the past, and will undoubtably 
in the future, bent any agreement to the point where it has no 
meaning or restraint whatsoever.
    Any agreement between the government and Microsoft should be 
exceptionally clear, forthright, and unambiguous. While many feel 
that Judge Jackson's proposed remedy of splitting the company in two 
was too radical, I disagree. It is unambigous and clear, and no 
amount of legal hair-splitting would prevent that agreement from 
having the desired effect.
    This desired effect is to prevent Microsoft from abusing its 
monopoly in Operating Systems to infiltrate and dominate other 
markets. This must be done, one way or another.
    Please reject the current settlement. Allow the case to go to 
trial. Let a judge make the final verdict, in the best interests of 
the people of the United States, and with due respect to her laws.
    Thaddeus Beier
    Hammerhead Productions
    January 23, 2002



MTC-00015652

From: Niall Walsh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:42am
Subject: Do drug dealers have to give free hits (for a while) to 
kids as a settlement? So why MS?
    It is completely insane to allow any aspect of a settlement 
against Microsoft to allow them to strengthen their monopoly! Please 
insist that no aspect of the settlement involves anyone acquiring 
copies of Microsoft products. If any aspect of the settlement is to 
have a monetary value it should actually be cash with which the 
benefactors can choose what to do with it. To allow MS to supply 
(for example) 20 time limited copies of their software to a school 
is like accepting a settlement with a drug dealer which says he will 
give the first 20 hits for free to school kids! The settltement is 
meant to redress the imbalance created by the abusive monopoly OR 
punish the abusive monopolists, not to re-enforce their position.
    Niall



MTC-00015653

From: Benjamin M. Hill 99
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is very poorly thought out. Microsoft 
will continue to strangle competition. the only settlement that 
would remedy the problem, in my opinion, would be to separate 
Microsoft into OS, Office, and .Net sections, all of which must 
publish fully open specifications between them.



MTC-00015654

From: Jonathan Vota
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: MS Settlement
    The proposed settlement isn't enough. We need to go further. 
Microsoft needs to join the free world and should open source it's 
code for the rest of the world to develop.



MTC-00015655

From: Davin Carten
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I won't list my arguements here (the list is too long, and I'm 
not certain the content of this e-mail will be read), but having 
followed the case I feel the SETTLEMENT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. BTW, I 
own 20 shares of Microsoft stock, and that is the only stock I own 
that is not in a mutual fund. I should be biased toward MS, but even 
owning their stock I consider them a threat to the long-term well-
being of our country.
    Davin Carten
    Partner
    FG SQUARED
    Austin, TX
    78701



MTC-00015656

From: Michael Challis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is shameful. As long as 
Microsoft can continue to leverage its monopoly to gain unfair 
advantage in all the arenas it competes in, I will think our 
government and system of justice is full of empty words but no 
rightful action. I believe the correct remedy would have been to 
split Microsoft into three companies. One for operating systems 
(Windows), one for applications (Office) and one for services 
(Internet, .NET, consulting and etc.) Then Microsoft couldn't 
leverage their monopoly in the first two to dominate the third. 
Please reconsider and do the right thing for America.
    Michael Challis



MTC-00015657

From: Sebastian Szyszka
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I feel the proposed antitrust settlement between Microsoft, Inc. 
and the U.S. Department of Justice is not the right way to go. The 
last thing we want is to give a company (Microsoft) that has been 
deemed guilty of anticompetitive practices an even larger 
stranglehold on the market by contributing software for ``free.'' It 
doesn't make sense to me to give Microsoft an even larger market 
share as a punishment for doing unfair things to other companies to 
gain market share. We should be looking at alternatives. Make 
Microsoft provide the hardware, and use Linux, a free, stable, 
secure and public Operating System. Or even make Microsoft purchase 
Macintoshes instead. No one but Microsoft will benefit from more 
installed Microsoft software.
    Thank you very much for your time.
    Sebastian D. Szyszka
    Roselle, IL



MTC-00015658

From: John Lusk
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Oh, one thing I forgot to mention in my previous email urging 
you to REJECT the PFJ: you have a lot of mail encouraged by 
Microsoft urging the opposite. Please bear in mind that corporate 
email is probably circulating constantly at Microsoft, encourage 
employees to send you email.
    John Lusk.

[[Page 26123]]



MTC-00015659

From: Lindell, Thomas
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My Sentiments exactly
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 proposed 
Microsoft settlement. We agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html> ), namely:

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems

    Microsoft http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#abe> 
increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using restrictive 
license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails 
to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions

    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.a> 
supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but it defines 
``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not covered.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.j> 
supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft Middleware with 
competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so 
narrowly that the next version of Windows might not be covered at 
all.
    The PFJ allows http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.k> 
users to replace Microsoft Java with a competitor's product--but 
Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The PFJ should therefore 
allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing middleware.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#def.u> 
supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that term so 
narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows 
CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that all use the 
Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.requirements> 
PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical requirements, 
allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by 
changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and not 
informing ISVs.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.timing> 
requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs so they can 
create compatible middleware--but only after the deadline for the 
ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is compatible.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.use> 
requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but prohibits 
competitors from using this documentation to help make their 
operating systems compatible with Windows.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.formats> 
does not require Microsoft to release documentation about the format 
of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#info.patents> 
does not require Microsoft to list which software patents protect 
the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems 
in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on 
Microsoft software patents? This can scare away potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft

    Microsoft http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.oss> 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source apps 
from running on Windows.
    Microsoft http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#isv.atl> 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Windows apps from 
running on competing operating systems.
    Microsoft's http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#enterprise> 
enterprise license agreements (used by large companies, state 
governments, and universities) charge by the number of computers 
which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for computers 
running competing operating systems such as Linux! (Similar licenses 
to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft

    Microsoft has http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#caldera> 
in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in its 
applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs

    The PFJ allows http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#oem> 
Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal Computers 
containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft operating 
system.
    The PFJ allows http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#oem> 
Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs--including regional 
``white box'' OEMs which are historically the most willing to 
install competing operating systems--who ship competing software.
    The PFJ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#oem.mda> allows 
Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on 
criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This 
allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible 
operating systems to increase its market share in other areas.
    The PFJ as http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html#enforcement> 
currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism. We also agree with the conclusion reached by that 
document, namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows 
and encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, 
would delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00015660

From: Michael Monasco
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement. It does not punish the 
convicted monopolist sufficiently. Like the last time this went to 
court, this judgement will not alter Microsoft's behavior.
    Mike Monasco
    President
    Cycle Software Services, Inc.
    952-886-6121



MTC-00015661

From: John Karakash
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that a ``slap on the wrist'' settlement with Microsoft 
is not in the best interests of the software field or, more 
importantly, that of the citizens of the United States. Using 
admittedly illegal practices, they have destroyed the competition 
which is the lifeblood of innovation. I believe that structural 
changes must be implemented and restitution must be paid for their 
past crimes and to hamper them in committing similar acts in the 
future.
    John Karakash
    Lvl7 Inc



MTC-00015662

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    In my opinion, the settlement with Microsoft will not be 
effective at stopping Microsoft from employing anticompetitive 
practices. It should not be adopted without substantial revision.
    Thouis Jones
    Cambridge, MA



MTC-00015663

From: Tom Rymes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment that I am personally opposed to the 
proposed settlement of the Microsoft Anti-trust trial. I feel the, 
among many other things, the proposed settlement ``Closes the barn 
door after the horse has run out''.
    Essentially, the proposal provides remedies that would have 
served to stop Microsoft's past violations of the law, but that will 
not deter the company from committing further transgresssions.
    Thank you,
    Tom



MTC-00015664

From: Neeraj Tulsian
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 26124]]

Date: 1/23/02  9:46am
Subject: Opinion on the proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Officer of the US Dept. of Justice,
    I am a Software Engineer with a Master's in Computer Science. In 
my opinion the proposed settlement in the Microsoft Anti-trust case 
is grossly inadequate for the seriousness of the situation.
    The stranglehold that Microsoft has on the desktop software 
industry is painfully obvious to me since 1991 when I first started 
my career. Managers in companies make decisions to buy Microsoft 
products not because of the technical superiority of Microsoft's 
products, but because of the fear that any competing products will 
soon be driven out of the desktop market by Microsoft's strong arm 
tactics or their outright purchase of the company. Microsoft at best 
is a company that borrows ideas from competitors like Apple and 
quickly takes over all market share by price-cutting, give-away 
policies and packaging the new products with its operating systems.
    As a developer of software I have seen many excellent companies 
become the victim of this anti-competitive behavior. More-over 
Microsoft uses its vast resources on drowning competitors in legal 
battles, thus resulting in smaller companies with limited financial 
resources quickly losing the battle.
    In my opinion it does not make sense that the company with the 
lowest quality operating system has an ever expanding monopoly over 
the desktop. The average consumer deserves better than frequent 
system crashes, constant security problems and lack of a viable 
choice of the desktop. Microsoft's sole concern is its ability to 
make money and it has no interest in the long term competitive 
health of the computer industry, or the interests of the common 
citizen.
    The proposed solution does nothing to remedy these problems and 
introduce realistic competition in the desktop arena, and punish the 
company that has already been proven guilty of monopolistic 
behavior. Similar measures introduced in the past had no noticeable 
improvement in Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, and I don't see 
any change in Microsoft's aggressive behavior.
    The earlier proposed breakup of the company might be the closest 
we can get to introducing competition and rectifying the errors of 
the past.
    I would urge the US Dept. of Justice to fight for the common man 
and not for the monopolistic Microsoft.
    Neeraj Tulsian
    Austin, TX
    Sr. Software Engineer
    M.S. Computer Science
    [email protected]
    US Phone 512-493-7346



MTC-00015665

From: Bryon Rigg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to drop a note to clarify my disgust with the 
handling ot the MS settlement. Microsoft is guilty of antitrust 
violations by using there monopoly standing to crush their 
competition, (see Netscape). While they continue to talk about how 
they provide innovation after innovation, what they are really doing 
is finding innovations that others make and then use their monopoly 
position to manipulate and squash the creators and then take their 
ideas as their own. Don't believe me? See Apple.
    The settlement is nothing more than a joke. What you are really 
doing is providing MS with the opportunity to increase their market 
share in the education sector as well as train tomorrow's adults to 
use MS products rather than expose them to alternatives.
    MS whined about being broken up, saying that it destabilize the 
market and reduce shareholder value. Bull. I am a MS shareholder. 
The best example that I can think of that this is bull is the 
breakup of AT&T. At the time, no one was sure if it was the right 
thing to do. However, any stock holder that hung on to their shares 
will tell you that the value of their holdings of AT&T as a monopoly 
did not compare to the value of their holding of AT&T and the Baby 
Bells. Furthermore, the breakup did open up competition just as it 
was intended to.
    As a stock holder, I would happily see a break-up of MS. I have 
complete confidence that the consumer, as well as the stockholders, 
would be better off.



MTC-00015666

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not believe that the current settlement between Microsoft 
and the DOJ effectively addresses the problems with Microsoft's 
monopoly. While it is true that Microsoft worked hard to achieve 
what they have, they have begun to, in my opinion, abuse their power 
and act detrimentally towards the American people, American 
Business, and the computer industry in general. By bundling services 
with their OS, i believe that they prohobit other versions of that 
service to be able to market or sell their product effectively. I 
know you have heard this before, by other people posting letters, 
lawyers, etc, but I want you to imagine a world with open 
competition. Companies would have a greater need to innovate to get 
users to adopt their products and would make competition a little 
bit more about the product than about the hooks in the background. 
Other companies are prevented from effectively doing this with the 
way things are now. In a world of innovation though, new things, 
that were never before thought of would come to light, perhaps 
transforming the landscape again and creating new markets and such.
    Microsoft is moving towards a subscription based service because 
it believes that it's customers have no choice but to accept their 
product and feels free to move in a direction to charge more money 
for less innovation. Face it, if you have a monthly cash flow and no 
competition, why innovate? It would be cheaper not to. My proposed 
remedies are this:
    1. Force microsoft to open up their APIs and major protocols to 
major competitors so they can learn about the OS and develop 
products that work well.
    2. Force Microsoft to completely open up their Speficications 
for their office file formats to lets competitors create 
interoperable software.
    3. Force Microsoft to put netscape on the desktop as part of 
their OS software release.
    4. Do not force microsoft to sell a stripped down version of the 
OS, but instead to make those parts of the OS which are not 
necessary (such as media player and I.E. uninstallable). I think it 
would be a bad idea to not have a web browser of some type on the 
desktop, becausing installing a web browser via FTP is hard and 
beyond the abilities of the average user.
    5. Create a committee to oversee microsoft in the other parts of 
the settlement that the DOJ proposes, but empower this committee to 
impose large fines for non complience, and enough oversight power to 
look at whatever needed aspects of the company and the software to 
do their job properly. This committee should last until microsoft no 
longer is a monopoly in the OS market.
    6. Microsoft should loose the power to bundle their software 
together for new and emerging industries (such as using the PC for 
home entertainment), The software to do this should be sold 
seporately on the shelves in another box at its own price. The 
oversight committee should be charged with identifying these new 
industries and the oversight to stop the bundling from happening 
with very large fines as the enforcement mechanism.
    I state again that I disagree with the current settlement and 
that microsoft is a monopoly with so much power that equally strong 
measures are needed to put this company back in it's place. I work 
in the computer industry as a technician and can see first hand the 
damage that microsoft has placed on this industry.
    Thank You for Listening
    Jason Fox



MTC-00015667

From: don juan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft(MS) settlement is a bad idea. I 
do not think that it effectively punish's MS for their actions. I 
think that MS is taking advantage of the judicial system and the 
amount of time that it takes to get a court case through the system. 
When the public was first hearing of the anti-competitive practices 
that MS was using in the browser war against Netscape, Netscape was 
the #1 browser.
    The judicial process took so long and MS continueed in their 
anti-competitive ways that MS is now the #1 browser. I think MS 
purposefully dragged out the judicial process in this matter, they 
knew how long it would take to get the case through court. Due to 
the highly dynamic and accelerated nature of computer technology, MS 
would have web browser dominance by time any settlement was reached 
in court. Once they have browser dominance, what kind of 
disciplinary action taken against them would matter? They get fined 
a few hundred million? a few billion? What difference will that make 
when their browser is on the majority of peoples computers.

[[Page 26125]]

    Any questions? please feel free to contact me.
    Thank You



MTC-00015668

From: David W. Thurston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Since when in this great country of ours do we allow convicted 
criminals to decide their own punishment.
    David W. Thurston



MTC-00015669

From: Richard Donald Kowalczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to make it known that I strongly disagree with the 
Microsoft anti-trust settlement. While there are numerous 
significant reasons that I feel this way, I will just mention one 
here. The settlement only requires Microsoft to disclose APIs to 
companies, which includes a minimum income, or something similar. 
Although I dont remember the details exactly, I do know that this 
would effectively eliminate the possibility of ``free software'' 
projects being able to properly interoperate with Microsoft 
products. Since Microsoft has stated, both publicly and in private 
(leaked memos) that they consider ``free software'' to be it's 
number one competition, excluding it from the settlement seems 
ludicrious. There is no reason that the APIs should not be disclosed 
to everyone, since their only use is to allow other software to 
properly interact with Microsoft software.
    As a student, I cannot afford to buy expensive software. While 
there are plenty of other software options out there which do not 
have Microsoft's monopolistic prices attached to them, I am 
effectively precluded from using these options because of microsofts 
monopoly in many areas. I hope that a better resolution can be 
reached then the one currently being considered.
    Signed,
    Rich Kowalczyk



MTC-00015670

From: Brian J. Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing this email to lodge my complaint against the 
currently proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    After having read the entire proposed settlement located at 
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, I have come to the 
firm conclusion that the settlement is poorly written. What I have 
yet to determine is why this judgment has been so poorly written. 
The amount of problems is abysmal, and finding too little time to 
elaborate on all of them, I will pick two which I will discuss here.
    1. Section III A needs revising to include the prohibition of 
Microsoft from punishing OEMs who choose to ship computer products 
which do not use a Microsoft Operating System.
    2. The overall settlement should include provisions on Microsoft 
to release documentation detailing the file formats on files which 
are used/generated by any Microsoft operating system or application.

Section III A of the settlement

    Here the government prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against 
any computer manufacturer who ships a computer which includes a 
competing operating system on the computer. However, it never 
specifies that Microsoft cannot retaliate against a computer 
manufacturer who ships a computer without a Microsoft operating 
system.
    As a member of the technological community, it is often obvious 
to me how Microsoft conducts it's business practices. If there is 
something Microsoft doesn't like, it will use whatever means it can 
to remove the offending item. We plainly saw this in the case 
against it's rival in the browser arena, Netscape. Microsoft began 
to tie their Internet Browser with the operating system, configured 
it to be the default browser, then made it difficult to remove IE 
from the desktop. The end result has been that IE now dominates the 
market.
    What are we then to conclude by the lack of restriction on 
Microsoft, a company which has been found to have engaged in 
Antitrust practices? Consider a scenario of a computer manufacturer 
who has a relationship with Microsoft, but chooses to operate a 
division which distributes PCs without using a Microsoft operating 
system. I can easily see where such a situation may arise if an OEM 
chooses to begin a Linux OS division.
    Because of the lack of a restriction, Microsoft is left with the 
ability to exert pressure on the OEM to close down that division, or 
its business relationship with Microsoft would suffer. The OEM is 
left with little choice but to stop that division, and the other OS 
is never given a chance to grow.
    Are we then to conclude that the only way an operating system is 
to grow is along with a dual installed relationship with Microsoft 
operating systems? Then how does Microsoft NOT influence technology 
and hurt the consumer? Section III A needs to be amended to include 
a clause which prohibits Microsoft from retaliating against OEMs who 
choose to ship computers without a Microsoft operating system.

Releasing Documentation on Microsoft File Formats

    Perhaps one of the more egregious tamperings with technology 
that I find Microsoft capable of is the continual modification of 
the file formats it uses, making inter operability with other 
applications and operating systems difficult at best and impossible 
at worst. Because of the dominance of Microsoft within the operating 
system market, no other operating system stands a chance if it 
cannot develop non Microsoft products that work with files generated 
with Microsoft products. Take for instance Microsoft Word documents. 
These are normally found with the ``.doc'' file extension. Microsoft 
continually modifies the structure of the .doc file format to 
prevent their editing and use with other pieces of software such as 
Corel WordPerfect.
    Corel was a case study in what happens with a company who 
chooses to compete against Microsoft in the word processing 
business. I cannot stress enough the number of times I had 
difficulties in opening and saving documents generated by Microsoft 
Word under WordPerfect. From a proprietary standpoint, Word 
documents deserve no protection on their file structure. The way 
that Microsoft Word operates is the true intellectual property, the 
files it save are merely pieces of data created by their users. So 
why does Microsoft continually change the file format? Simple, it 
makes competing applications and operating systems look like they do 
not work, thereby misleading customers that they must use Microsoft 
or Microsoft certified products.
    If any other operating system is going to become competitive, it 
must be able to handle documents generated by Microsoft applications 
and operating systems. In order for this to occur, the Department of 
Justice must order Microsoft to open their file structure formats to 
the public, as they are modified for use within their own 
applications and operating systems. The lack of such a statement on 
the part of the Justice Department, makes the settlement that much 
weaker. I read newspapers, I follow the news, and I participate in 
several technology information forums. From discussions which arise 
from colleagues and friends, it amazes me the number of times I hear 
the opinion that the Department of Justice is settling with 
Microsoft with easy terms due to the nature of our economy. I find 
it ludicrous that the Department of Justice could so easily settle 
this case because there is a sentiment that somehow rightfully 
punishing an offender of the Antitrust legislation's would hurt the 
economy, and therefore we must somehow be lenient on the offender. 
Yet, it appears this may be actually happening.
    I believe part of the economy's problems stem from corporation's 
abuse of business ethics and how they conduct themselves. Business 
nowadays is tending towards cut-throat maneuvering, decreasing 
customer care, and the policy that if you can't make a buck under 
normal conditions, you should litigate-litigate-litigate until you 
can put a competitor out of business and bring in fanciful amount of 
revenues through patent infringements.
    Microsoft may not be the only company who conducts cut-throat 
business tactics, but it is a prime example of how a mega-
corporation can influence the progression of technology, which 
ultimately hurts the growth of business and advancement. This 
settlement offers us the chance to prohibit Microsoft from further 
negative influences, but the condition in which the settlement 
currently is in offers nothing more than the Department of Justice 
could have had several years ago in an out of court settlement with 
Microsoft. I distrust Microsoft from being able to behave and act 
responsibly. I look upon the settlement with cynical eyes and 
believe that it will do NOTHING to punish Microsoft for crimes which 
it has been found guilty of in our courts of law. Please consider 
amending this document so that it may serve the purpose which it was 
originally intended, as a document which will bind Microsoft

[[Page 26126]]

from anti-competitive practices and ensures that other businesses, 
competitive products, and technology are allowed to flourish.
    Brian J. Taylor
    Software Engineer
    Institute for Software Research
    1000 Technology Drive
    Fairmont, WV 26554



MTC-00015671

From: Scott Meyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my voice to the avalanche of complaints 
against the anti-competitive business practices of Microsoft. If 
there was ever a time to stand up against a tyrant, it is now, while 
they are still small. If not, we may set a dangerous precedent, 
allowing powerful corporations to dictate policy to the People of 
the United States.
    Thank you.
    Scott Meyer
    Whistler: I want peace on earth and good will toward man.
    Abbott: Oh this is ridiculous.
    Bishop: He's serious.
    Whistler: I want peace on earth and good will toward man.
    Abbott: We are the United States Government. We don't do that 
sort of thing.
    Bishop: You're just gonna have to try.
    Abbott: Ok, I'll see what I can do.
    Whistler: Thank you very much. That's all I ask.
    [email protected]



MTC-00015672

From: Antonio Edmond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: microsoft
    My name is Antonio and I feel Microsoft should have a harsher 
punishment then they received. The way the punishment is designed so 
far is that they still have a lot to gain and nothing to lose. I 
feel there is no justice for that. If this would have been someone 
of a lower stature they would have received justice on a higher 
scale.
    Antonio E. Edmond
    1405 Galaxie Dr.
    Dothan, AL 36301



MTC-00015673

From: John Cole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to object to the proposed settlement with Microsoft and 
the DOJ. I find it hard to understand why the DOJ has determined 
that Microsoft is a company guilty of maintaining it's monopoly 
illegally, yet offers a settlement with such restrictive language 
that Microsoft will be able to use the proposed settlement to 
further it's monopoly in the future.
    By allowing Microsoft to narrowly define what is windows in the 
settlement, and use the same Win32 API and marketing in every 
product they make, let's Microsoft dead end this settlements goals. 
Microsoft will simply launch a new Windows products outside of the 
definition and sidestep all remedies in this settlement.
    Personally, I have found that Microsoft's words and actions have 
proven that this is an untrustworthy company, and any remedies that 
rely on Microsoft's willingness to live up to the spirit of the 
settlement will fail. I tend to favor the original ruling of 
breaking up Microsoft, however, I do not believe that two companies 
would actually help. I would like to see Microsoft broken into four 
or five companies (Microsoft Windows Inc., Microsoft Office Inc., 
Microsoft Development Products Inc., Microsoft Home & Games Inc., 
Microsoft Internet Applications Inc.) so that it would be impossible 
for Microsoft to resort to proven illegal tactics against 
competitors. I would expect all of the Microsoftlets would be very 
powerful competitors in their respective marketplaces, increase 
shareholder value, increase innovation over what I believe is the 
lowered expectations from Microsoft, and finally provide stable and 
secure software from the companies.
    Thank you for your time, and I hope you consider my opinions.
    John Cole
    Internet Applications Corporation



MTC-00015674

From: Ronald Kronz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement of the Microsoft antitrust case 
is unwise because it fails to force Microsoft to abandon its long-
established anticompetitive practices.
    Ronald Kronz



MTC-00015675

From: Todd Stimpson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern;
    I am terrified at the prospect of being held hostage by the 
Microsoft monopoly. I have the right, as a U.S. citizen, of freedom 
of choice. The government is required to guarantee that right.
    Sincerely,
    Todd Stimpson



MTC-00015676

From: Paul Lorenz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attn: Justice Department quoted from R. Cringley> 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, ...'' /end quote>
    Since many of MicroSofts greatest competitors are Open Source, 
this effectively bars them from competition. Also why is MicroSoft, 
which supposed to be penalized, being allowed to decide anything, 
much less who will be allowed access to it's APIs? They are experts 
at weaseling out of things, and they will doubtless use any cause, 
however flimsey to show a company is not ``viable'. Any company that 
is beyond reproach will doubtless not need access.
    The settlement is a travesty and helps Microsoft, and does not 
penalize or address the root cause of the case, that being 
MicroSoft's monopolistic practices.
    A 3 member panel to watch over MicroSoft is also ridiculous. 
First off, 3 people do not have the resources to watch over the 
behomoth that is MicroSoft and secondly, why is MicroSoft being 
allowed to choose it's watchers?
    MicroSoft has been found guilty of illegally perpetuating a 
monopoly. Their monopolizaton should be hindered, not helped. The 
Justice department should be ashamed. This settlement has nothing to 
do with Justice and everything to do with pandering to MicroSoft. 
This is inexusable.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Lorenz
    Rochester, NY
    Software Engineer, NetSetGo Inc.



MTC-00015677

From: Fred Lovine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. A better solution for the 
businesses, families and individuals of the USA is to break the 
Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft is an incredibly aggressive company 
that has regularly engaged in predatory pricing (Internet Explorer 
is free, which is new technology) and price gouging (Word for 
Windows 2002 is about $300, which is old technology and should be 
part of the operating system by now).
    I favor a solution that regulates Microsoft's future conduct as 
well as punishes Microsoft for past monopolistic and illegal 
activities. I propose that punitive damage be that the source code 
of some significant Microsoft product be released to the world under 
the GNU GPL. Either Windows 98 or Word for Windows 2000. Either 
product released to the world would allow all a choice between 
freeware and price gouging. This would further enable people and 
business to redirect cash that was destined for Microsoft to other 
parts of the troubled economy.
    As for the regulation of Microsoft, I leave that for others to 
contemplate.
    Thank you.
    Fred Lovine
    Chief Technical Officer
    CityLinkWeb, Inc.
    [email protected]
    Phone: (978) 447-1393
    Cell: (617) 750-2484
    Fax: (413) 828-8295



MTC-00015678

From: Cory Steers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello.
    I'd like to comment on the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
antitrust lawsuit. I do not feel that the proposal is severe enough. 
Previous penalties placed on

[[Page 26127]]

Microsoft have failed largely due to the pace at which technology 
changes. I fear that the current proposal is doomed to a similar 
fate.
    In short I feel that the punishment should be much more severe. 
Here are some ideas I have.
    1. Force Microsoft to make its Windows API available to other 
software makers. That means all of the APIs available to all 
competitors.
    2. As a possilbe addition to #1, split Microsoft Office into a 
seperate company from Microsoft Windows. This will further level the 
playing field for competing products.
    Here is a link to a website that has a lot of opinions by people 
who have thought a lot more about this than I have. I encourage you 
to take time to read their comments as well. http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/ Thank you for taking the time to read my comments, and those 
of others. I hope it will help shape a more appropriate settlement 
for the consumer.
    Cory Steers
    [email protected]



MTC-00015679

From: manof bread
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    As a citizen of the United States of America, I am writing to 
voice my dissatisfaction with the pending Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. It seems that the particulars of this settlement are 
concerned more with the political will and clout of the moment 
rather than the letter of the laws upon which the nation operates. 
I've always appreciated the fact that ours is a nation of laws, not 
of men. However, it seems in this instance that influence is being 
exercised more than good judgment. The settlement as proposed would 
appear to be a mere slap on the hand for monopolistic actions as 
well as tacit permission for continued strong-arm tactics by 
Microsoft, rather than a more adequate punishment which this 
corporation deserves. I would ask that you consider not accepting 
the settlement as it stands and instead pursue more stringent 
restrictions of Microsoft's future activities.
    Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Regards,
    James R. Easterling
    St. Louis, MO



MTC-00015680

From: Richard Cravens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00015681

From: Nutter, Mark
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With regards to the Tunney Act and comments on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement...
    I find the proposed settlement disturbing. It seems clear from 
the evidence that Microsoft has used and continues to use a number 
of anti-competitive practices to establish an effective monopoly in 
the software marketplace, and is planning to use tactics that are 
questionable at best to exact payments from large and small 
companies for license fees that may or may not actually be due. That 
plus the impact on our economy of the various viruses that exploit 
all-too-common security weaknesses in Microsoft products combine to 
give me a dim view of our future should Microsoft's stranglehold on 
the PC software market go unbroken. And if they succeed in 
conquering the broadband media market they are currently targeting, 
then God help us all. If they manage to do to the Internet what 
they've done to Netscape, and HTML, and Javascript, and what they 
tried to do to Java, then it will truly be a Microsoft world.
    I for one know where I *don't* want to go tomorrow.
    Mark Nutter
    Manager, IT Applications Development
    Marconi
    [email protected]



MTC-00015682

From: Richard L. McKee
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea



MTC-00015683

From: Peter Ripley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I just wanted to voice my opinion on the revised proposed Final 
Judgment of Nov 6, 2001, US v Microsoft.
    I do not believe that the proposal will be effective in 
restraining Microsoft from anti-competitive practices; they will 
still leverage their monopoly power on the OS to illegally thwart 
competitors in other arenas. Please consider strengthening the PFJ 
to further restrain and penalize Microsoft.
    Thank you.
    Peter Ripley
    839 Carroll Street #5
    Brooklyn, NY 11215
    Peter H Ripley
    v 718 638-7976
    [email protected]
    Solvient, Inc.
    m 917 364-1018
    aim://hripple
    Information Solutions
    f 413 702-1978
    http://solvient.com



MTC-00015684

From: James S. White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I do not believe the current 
settlement proposal is adequate. Microsoft has continued it's 
abusive monopolistic practices, even in light of the proceedings 
against them. I would like to see a settlement proposal that has 
some chance of putting an end to this. If you don't do something to 
stop them now, we will have to go through this again in a few years.
    ``I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me 
and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ... 
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high 
places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor 
to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people 
until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is 
destroyed.''
    -Abraham Lincoln
    James S. White
    GX-Tech Inc.
    [email protected]
    Electrical Engineer
    http://www.jameswhite.org
    Caffeine is my anti-drug.
    ``The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men 
to do Nothing''
    -Edmund Burke 1729-1797



MTC-00015685

From: Eric Christiansen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i think the proposed settlement is bad idea. it does nothing to 
stop their monopoly.
    nepenthe,
    -eric



MTC-00015686

From: Alejandro Morales
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's offenses, 
nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the same in the 
future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring 
them to extend their monopoly into the US educational system is 
incomprehensible.



MTC-00015687

From: Robert Thornburg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment, under the Tunney Act, on the Proposed 
Final Judgement of the Microsoft case.
    I do not feel that the proposed settlement is restrictive 
enough. It allows Microsoft many ways to continue anti-competetive 
behavior. It does not restrict Microsoft's from anti-competetive any 
business market other than PC software, and Microsoft has shown a 
great interest in taking over other markets. The proposed settlement 
does not have sever enough penalties if Microsoft fails to comply 
with it.
    In order for a settlement to be beneficial to the citizens of 
the United States (and indeed the rest of the world) it must contain 
severe penalties for failing to comply with it, as well as 
restricting Microsoft's anti-competetive behavior much more 
severely, especially by preventing them from using the same illegal/

[[Page 26128]]

unethical actions from their past in new markets.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Thornburg
    2574 Mass Ave
    Cambridge MA, 02140
    [email protected]



MTC-00015688

From: Jeff Greenfield
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea. There are 
many others who can better elaborate than I about the issues 
involved that affect the WINE application development, SAMBA 
application development, and other software that works with the API 
interfaces that Microsoft provides. The settlement does not 
sufficently curb Microsoft's negative effects on these applications.
    Jeffrey Greenfield, Grand Rapids, MI, Systems Engineer, Calvin 
College



MTC-00015689

From: Jaime Riney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata B. Hesse
    I am writing today to express my concerns over the Microsoft 
Anti-trust settlement. I currently operate two computers on more or 
less a continual basis. I have two other computers that are older 
and have been salvaged from parts. On my primary machine, I have 
Redhat Linux installed which I myself use almost exclusively; on my 
secondary machine, I have Microsoft Windows; the two auxiliary 
computers are used for testing and developing, and are primarily 
loaded with Linux operating systems. I want to stress the fact that 
I am not a Micro$oft Windows user. I have Windows on one machine out 
of necessity, for some things are more easily achieved through 
Windows and it is slightly more user friendly for my wife and 
guests, however, I am not an advocate of Microsoft and I not wish to 
finance their organization.
    Microsoft claims that they are not a monopoly, yet they own 
ninety-five plus percent of the home user market. Micro$oft claims 
fair business practices, yet they have been embattled on all sides 
from corporate interests to end-users. Microsoft claims to offer 
choices, yet works tirelessly to prevent competition even to the 
point of advocating laws that would make open-source software 
illegal.
    Everything that Microsoft claims appears to be in opposition to 
reality. To date I know of only one company that will give you a 
choice of operating systems that you can receive with your new 
computer (desktop computers only). Every other company requires the 
customer to purchase a version of Microsoft Windows on a new 
computer or laptop. If a customer should require a new computer 
system, and that user had no intention of using the Windows 
operating system (as is the case for myself), that user will still 
be required to purchase a license and pay tribute to Microsoft for 
the right to buy a mainstream commercial system, or else piece meal 
a system and pay significantly higher for a comparable machine. This 
current situation alone, in my opinion, is intolerable. Microsoft, 
for years, has bilked the government, corporations, and end-users 
for an operating system that cannot be definitively proven to be 
superior in performance and capabilities than a free operating 
system that has largely been worked in peoples spare time, at least 
until the adoption of companies like Redhat. The only claim to their 
success is there abusive and strong-arm tactics that they used in 
the business world. Namely, exclusive licensing agreements, 
leveraging huge financial and legal assets against smaller 
struggling companies, and a sustained, false campaign against a free 
alternative to their proprietary software that likens advocates of 
open-source software to criminals. Forgive my digression, but can I 
sue them for libel? Not likely, their flock of legal dogs would 
squash me in a heartbeat.
    I am in favor of sever punitive damages against Microsoft. I 
would like to see the company broken up into smaller organizations, 
and fines assessed that are appropriately punishing to a company 
with enormous cash assets. In my opinion, Microsoft is the single 
largest impediment to progress in this country. Microsoft says you 
can advance technologically, however, you must do it their way or 
not at all. I think it is time to take that choice away from 
Microsoft and give it back to people and the industry.
    I do not feel that the remedies proposed in your settlement go 
far enough to punish Micro$oft. In fact I am concerned with the idea 
of recognizing Microsoft as a legal monopoly that is sanctioned and 
watched over by government. My fear is your solution will give 
Microsoft a favored status that will actually promote the continued 
expansion into more and different market shares. Microsoft is a 
monopoly, the solution is to punish the company and to disable their 
ability to continue to monopolize markets.
    Sincerely
    Jamie S. Riney
    P.S. These viewpoints are entirely free and may be copied, used, 
modified, or added to as wished under the principles of an open and 
free interchange of information and ideas.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015690

From: Josh Simon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I object to the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft case 
(the Tunney act). It's a bad idea.
    -j



MTC-00015691

From: Jason Zwolak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Jason Zwolak (Masters in CS, working towards PhD)
    3700 Richmond Ln NW Apt B
    Blacksburg VA 24060
    Affilliation: Computer Science Department of Virginia Tech



MTC-00015692

From: Jeremy Pastore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i think this settlement is a bad idea it is too vague and/or 
lenient and will not solve the issues that it attempts to resolve. 
with it's approval,
    mocrosoft will continue to leverage its operating system in 
every area of it's business. the public will continue to be forced 
into buying the same limited line of inferior products that can only 
be used on the same inferior operating system...
    thank you,
    Jeremy Pastore



MTC-00015693

From: Matthew Muzzi
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a monopoly. This is a simple fact. The settlement 
is a bad idea.



MTC-00015694

From: Milan Hejtmanek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    As a university professor who has used personal computers daily 
for the past fifteen years, I would like to comment on the proposed 
settlement.
    I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please consider 
this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a vote to 
seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's competitors. 
Over the past decade I have been appalled at the inhibition of 
competition created by Micrsoft's business practices: the decline of 
Netscape Navigator is one example, the lack of choices in word 
processing programs is another. In many ways, MS Word is bloated and 
mediocre--in its ability to handle foreign language scripts, for 
example--but Microsoft's near-complete dominance of the operating 
system market has given it too much market leverage in application 
software for other companies to compete successfully. Who would now 
dare (or could find the capital?) to start up a company marketing a 
new word processing program, regardless of its manifest superiority? 
MS competes only against itself at present.
    I urge you to find an effective way to force Microsoft to allow 
genuine competition.
    Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Milan G. Hejtmanek
    2200 Benjamin Franklin Parkway
    Apt. 1505A
    Philadelphia, PA 19130



MTC-00015695

From: Todd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26129]]

    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to take advantage of the public comment period and 
speak my opinions regarding the Microsoft antitrust case. I am sure 
you have received many of these letters, and are not concerned about 
hashing over Microsoft's guilt or settlement shortcomings, so I will 
avoid these topics.
    First off, I am a network administrator for an outdoor equipment 
distributor, and I feel that it is not only my job but also my 
interest to follow this case and be involved. I have been watching 
this trial closely since its origin, and would like to think I have 
an educated view from a business and technical standpoint, though 
not so much from a legal perspective.
    In my five years of network administration experience I have 
used many of Microsoft's operating systems, programs, and equally as 
many systems from their competitors. Though I will implement any 
given system that fits the niche in which it is being used for, be 
it Microsoft or not, it would greatly please me, the corporation 
that I work for, and all of my colleagues to see a fair market and 
competition against Microsoft. Therefore I believe it is in the 
public interest to resolve this case in an effective manner.
    Now I would like to make a few comments about Microsoft's 
monopoly and the settlement that will be implemented. Microsoft has 
roughly 95% of the desktop Operating System market; this is their 
cornerstone, and it is huge. They can control what nearly every 
computer can and can not do. This is not necessarily illegal, until 
they abuse it. They abused it to win the web browser battle.
    And they did win. It is all but over, granted I don't us IE, but 
I am a small percentage. I think that it would certainly be 
appropriate to punish them for this action, but far more important 
to prevent future abuse. They have already won the browser battle, 
so putting restrictions on them according to what they have done in 
the past is not enough. We have to predict what they will do in the 
future to expand their monopoly illegally. To do this, we have to 
look at who they will compete against next. I think this would be 
IBM, Red Hat Linux, and other Unix variants. To ensure fair 
competition there are two major points that must be addressed in any 
settlement, in addition to the several others that are being 
proposed concerning vendors and policies.
    First point: In almost every corporate computer network nearly 
90% of the desktops run a Windows operating system. This is a 
monopoly, and Microsoft will make attempts to use this monopoly to 
expand their server market. To prevent this, all network protocols 
that a Microsoft desktop operating system (Windows9X, WindowsME, 
Windows XP, Windows 2000 Professional) uses to communicate with a 
server must be documented, updated regularly with any changes, and 
most importantly made available to ANYBODY who wants them. If 
Microsoft gets to pick and choose who gets access to this 
documentation, then it will not be effective. I should not be forced 
to buy a Microsoft server just because I have a network of Microsoft 
desktops. I should have the freedom of choosing an IBM server, a Sun 
server, a Linux server, or even an Apple server. There is a decent 
amount of freedom of choice in this area now, and that is why action 
must be taken now to prevent Microsoft from abusing its monopoly of 
desktops and gaining a monopoly of server operating systems.
    Second point: Businesses should have the freedom to use any 
other desktop operating system along with Microsoft desktop 
operating systems. You might say that the freedom is there, but I 
disagree. Microsoft's monopoly in office applications prevents any 
user who wants to communicate with others from using an operating 
system that does not have Microsoft Office (anything other than 
Windows or Macintosh). Microsoft should be forced to document, and 
disclose to everybody, all file formats used by Microsoft Office. 
Microsoft would argue that it is not illegal to have proprietary 
file formats, and this is true, however I think that Microsoft has 
abused this illegally. Microsoft constantly changed the file format 
with the intention of breaking any other application that attempts 
to read them. A perfect example is Corel. Microsoft's constant 
changing of their file formats, with the intention of breaking Corel 
Office's compatibility, has severely damaged Corel's business, and, 
since I am from Utah, my local economy as well. It comes down to one 
point: Microsoft has a monopoly in Office software, this monopoly 
removes my ability to choose another desktop operating system, and 
therefore illegally maintains Microsoft's monopoly of desktop 
operating systems. In closing, I say that all are surely in 
agreement that the resolution of this case is of great importance, 
not just now but for many years to come.
    This suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more 
important to the health of the nation than is a hasty one.
    Thank you for listening to my opinions,
    Jeffrey Todd Morrey
    [email protected]
    3037 E Banbury Road
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84121



MTC-00015696

From: Ari Turetzky
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice should not have a price tag!
    Please do not let Microsoft buy their way out of this.
    Thank you,
    Ari Turetzky
    Systems Support-Development Team Lead
    Illinois State University
    438-3738
    mailto:[email protected]
    mailto:[email protected]>



MTC-00015697

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern ->
    I'm writing to you about the proposed settlement between the 
Justice Department and Microsoft.
    I like many in my field (I'm a programmer/consultant), I do not 
feel that the settlement, as proposed, will do much, if anything, to 
force Microsoft to modify its anticompetitive behavior. There are 
several outstanding issues that the settlement only (very) narrowly 
addresses.
    If Microsoft has shown anything over the years of interaction w/ 
the Justice Department is that they will not do anything out of good 
faith. Any settlements must have clear and succinct behavior 
modifications in it or it will be meaningless.
    For reference: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Thanks,
    todd



MTC-00015698

From: JC Pollman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement will strangle the computing 
industry and ensure a monopoly! Why do you do this?
    JC Pollman



MTC-00015699

From: Dan Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:52 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I wrote once before on the topic of Microsoft's proposed 
donation to public schools and why I felt that the donation of MS 
software was detrimental to public education, but I would like to 
add that the Microsoft Settlement as it now stands does little or 
nothing to limit Microsofts potential for future anti-competitive 
behavior. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, I'd encourage the 
careful examination of Dan Kegel's open letter to the DOJ which I 
have signed. Thank you for your time.
    -Dan
    Below is the text of my letter of 12/14:
    (I'd like to add to this letter that my wife and I have been 
spending money out of our pockets to make copies of reading packets 
for her students at the local Kinkos. This is due to the dilapidated 
condition of the photocopier at her school. We've spent $80 this 
year on making copies for students. I am currently attending school 
and working and our resources are limited. My wife is considering 
cutting things out of her curriculum, because we cannot afford to 
continue supporting these projects out of our own funds.
    The money spent each year on Windows Licenses would easily buy 
the school a new copy machine, thus relieving us of this burden and 
allowing my wife to teach her curriculum in the most effective way 
possible. I believe this misappropriation of public funds to be 
criminal and call again for public schools to only use software that 
is freely available.)
    To whom it may concern,
    I am a computer programmer who has worked as a system 
administrator and a technical support provider for unix, windows, 
and macintosh machines. I'm currently working on an electrical 
engineering degree from the University of Utah. I've been very 
concerned about the

[[Page 26130]]

Microsoft Settlement currently proposed by the Department of 
Justice. The Microsoft Windows Operating System is uniquely unsuited 
to the public education sector. I believe this to be true for a 
number of reasons:
    1) There are several very good Operating Systems available free 
of cost (all of the distributions of both Linux and BSD can be 
obtained for free, the GNU Hurd will soon be freely available). My 
wife teaches seventh grade english and I believe it's evident that 
there are many ways in which the funds allocated for public 
education could be better spent than on complicated and cripplingly 
expensive licenses.
    2) Microsoft software makes an effort to hide from the user many 
of the fundamental processes that a computer routinely performs in 
day to day operation. The objective of hiding these preocesses is to 
make a computer easier to use and probably accounts, in large part, 
for Microsoft's success in the market, but does not seem suited to 
educating young people about how computers work. If a person can use 
a unix clone operating system (such as Linux, BSD, or Hurd) that 
person can easily adapt to Microsoft software and is often more 
competent than life long Microsoft users. As the goal is education 
it seems apparent that unix clones are the better alternative.
    3) Most operating systems in use today (including the MS Dos 
Operating system upon which the windows operating systems are based) 
are based on Unix. This makes it a very easy jump from Unix to any 
other Operating System.
    4) The freely available software is most often willing to 
furnishthe source code for the Operating Systems and all 
applications. The educational value of this for Computer Programming 
students cannot be overstated. For students to be able to examine 
the source code of professionals will help produce a generation of 
skilled, creative programmers with very professional coding styles.
    5) Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. Adam Smith warned of 
the dangers of Government Sponsored Monopolies. To place Microsoft 
Software in schools is a government endorsement of their product. 
This could certainly viewed as a sanction. There are many 
distributions of opereating systems furnished entirely by not-for-
profit volunteer organizations. (Look at www.debian.org for 
starters). The use of these non-corporate operating systems would 
help to protect capitalist ideals of a free market and of no 
government endorsements of corporations.
    Taking into account the considerations that makes Microsoft 
software unsuitable for public education, I feel strongly that the 
anti-trust settlement ought to be altered such that Microsoft makes 
their contribution to public education entirely in computer 
hardware, and that software better suited to public education be 
selected by schools to be put on those machines.
    Dan Moore
    Developer
    SandStar Family Entertainment



MTC-00015700

From: bart hubbard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the settlement proposed is a poor solution.
    -bart hubbard



MTC-00015701

From: Timothy Preston
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement is a bad idea. 
Microsoft has ignored similar settlement terms in the past, and has 
shown little regard for the seriousness of their crime throughout 
the trial. The settlement offer currently on the table represents a 
negligence in the duty of the Attorney General's office in 
protecting the American people from this type of criminal behavior. 
It is sad indeed when a corporation can become large enough to buy 
out the integrity of the US government.
    Tim Preston
    [email protected]
    http://homepage.mac.com/tpreston--Tori Amos
    ``And is your place in heaven worth giving up these kisses?''



MTC-00015702

From: Greg Lim
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:52 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings to the US D.O.J.
    I speak for myself and do not represent anyone, though I believe 
that my opinion matches that of many of my colleagues. Simply put, 
the settlement does not go far enough.
    1. There appear to be little or no penalties for non-
cooperation.
    2. Loopholes. Someone check this. I've seen plenty of essays on 
the settlement listing large numbers of possible loopholes.
    3. We need *Full* disclosure of *all* API's with extremely heavy 
penalties for noncompliance. An API is an interface, which provides 
for interoperability. Disclosing these puts no penalty on a fairly-
behaving Microsoft.
    4. File formats need to be documented. A user's data belongs to 
the user. If a user cannot get a format for the file his/her data is 
stored in, then he is totally dependant on the program used to 
operate on the data.
    5. Non-Microsoft operating systems, and non-Microsoft licensing 
schemes are discriminated against. I myself have seen EULA's and 
used products at work (Visual C++ for example) that only allow the 
creation of programs that run on Microsoft systems, even though 
there is *no* technical reason for this. These are just a few of the 
problems with the settlement. I hope that it will be reviewed more 
carefully. I personally am not in favor of a breakup yet, but if it 
does need to happen, it should be:
    1. in addition to everything listed in the settlement
    2. one of the penalties for non-cooperation.
    3. along the lines of:
    a. development software
    b. office and other application software
    c. database software
    d. operating systems
    Here is a final set of suggestions. Microsoft should be legally 
blinded as to who it is dealing with.
    1. All buyers should be able to get the same pricing. For ex. If 
Monster OEM can get a product for $100 in qty's of 100 then Tiny OEM 
as well as Joe user should be able to as well.
    2. Microsoft should not be able to remove first-sale rights 
though any means. Once an OS licence is sold to an OEM, the OEM can 
bundle whatever else on the PC he/she wishes. Resale is *always* 
possible.
    3. Microsoft should be probihited from ever making note of 
competitors's products, licensing schemes or any other identifying 
marks in their EULA's and OEM contracts.
    Thank you for reading this far!
    If you have questions for me, you can contact me at my place of 
work:
    [email protected]
    -Greg Lim



MTC-00015703

From: Bernard J. Duffy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:52 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed anti-trust settlement that 
the United States has negotiated with Microsoft.
    Microsoft has worked hard to make intertwined, inflexible 
licensing and poor interoperability an industry norm.
    Microsoft today is no different than Standard Oil & Carnegie 
Steel 100 years ago. Please reconsider taking harsher action against 
Microsoft.



MTC-00015704

From: Mannisto, Keith
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 9:50 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed in this case against Microsoft, does NOT 
consider the Public interest in the least. It serve only to extent 
the HOLD that MicroSoft already has on the general computer user.
    I would like to propose that a provision to separate the MS-
Windows Graphical Users Interface (AKA: GUI) from the underlying 
Operating System (AKA: OS) also be added to the agreement.
    Thank you for your time in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Programmer/Analyst
    Keith Mannisto
    1027 Springfield Dr.
    Northville, Mi 48167-3323
    CC:`''mannisto(a)mediaone.net'



MTC-00015705

From: Tod Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:51 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    This settlement is a not a good proposal to enhance competetion 
or bring more choice to consumers. It does not address the main 
issues regarding Microsoft's monopoly. The best way to do this is to 
require Microsoft to publish it's file formats and propietary 
standards to the public. This would allow

[[Page 26131]]

people to communicate with Microsoft products using other operating 
systems, hence allowing a real choice in what to use. This would not 
hinder Microsoft's ability to compete on it's own merits. The 
operating issue is not as important as the use of the Microsoft 
Office products and Outlook/Exchange to further it's monopoly. 
Opening these standards would allow a level playing field without 
undue restrictions on Microsoft and it's ability to inovate. This 
would not require an undue burden of enforcement on the government 
or Microsoft. I feel this would be an excellent move for consumers 
and, frankly, Microsoft. I hope these concerns are taken into 
consideration when reviewing this settlement.
    Tod Schmidt
    Network Engineer
    Cable and Wireless
    [email protected]
    (wk) 703-760-1765
    (cl) 703-869-4994



MTC-00015706

From: Chester Hoster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:56 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015707

From: Kelly, Dan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Dan Kelly
    Information Services
    ext 9030
    BE&K--Delaware
    132 Woodlake Drive
    Marlton, NJ 08053



MTC-00015708

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:53 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. Although it 
encourages Microsoft to become less monopolistic, Microsoft's 
history shows that if there is any legal-ish way for it to retain 
its monopoly, it will. I would like to see a complete separation of 
the operating system and applications divisions. Such a separation 
would help to expose collusion between the divisions for what they 
really are and may eventually lead to a competitive operating system 
market. If this is not possible, I would still be happy to see 
restrictions put on Microsoft's business practices that are stronger 
than those currently proposed.
    Thank you,
    Jason Rennie
    44 Grove St.
    Belmont, MA 02478
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015709

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The American consumer and citizen will be cheated out of justice 
if the proposed Microsoft antitrust suit is allowed to settle in its 
current form. Microsoft's business practices are truely anti-
competitive and the company must be contained, punished, and 
reformed. Though I should comment on specific portions on the 
settlement that I don't agree with, I feel that the following points 
are the most outstanding:

The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems:

    --Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.

The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions:

    --The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    --The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not 
be covered at all.
    --The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    --The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box-- operating systems that all use 
the Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    --The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    --The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    --The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    --The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    --The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently used 
by Microsoft:

    --Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    --Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    --Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.)

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities Historically 
Used by Microsoft:

    --Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.

The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards OEMs:

    --The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    --The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs--
including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    --The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Thank you for your time. I'm sure you will help protect the 
rights of American citizens, consumers, and business.
    Andrew MooJin Park
    andrew moojin park
    systems analyst--its
    federal reserve bank of cleveland
    [email protected]
    216.579.2389



MTC-00015710

From: Andy Ingraham Dwyer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement between the federal 
government and Microsoft. I believe it does not do nearly enough to 
limit the anticompetitive practices of an illegal monopoly.
    Please record my disapproval.
    Andy Ingraham Dwyer



MTC-00015711

From: ravi pina
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not support the proposed settlement because I do not think 
it provides sufficient punishment to balance Microsoft's offenses, 
nor sufficient incentive to prevent them from doing the same in the 
future. Furthermore, the idea of punishing a monopoly by requiring 
them to extend their monopoly into the US educational system is 
incomprehensible.

[[Page 26132]]

    Ravi Pina
    Boston, MA
    Network Systems Administrator



MTC-00015712

From: jared eisenmann
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:53am
Subject: No on settlement!
    I vote NO! to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of small companies have ceased to 
exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices. 
The idea that a company found to be a monopoly's punishment is to 
spread their product to even MORE people, is absolutely ludicrous. 
Punish them by making them even more of a monopoly? I fail to see 
how giving them a larger market share is a punishment. It is a 
reward! The opposite would be a punishment, force Microsoft to pay 
for its competators (such as Linux or Apple) to put their systems 
into under-priveldged schools.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition. Are we to return to the late 19th 
centruy? Will a few men like JP Morgan and Carnegie control our 
destiny again? I say Nay! Capitolism is based on competition- and 
monopolies eliminate competition. The settlement with Microsoft is 
doing nothing to curtail it's monopolistic practices.
    Jared Eisenmann
    George Washington U.



MTC-00015713

From: Michael Richey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I do not think the settlement goes far enough as a punishment 
for Microsoft's crimes. I'm an unemployed unix software developer, 
and because of Microsoft's monopoly it is difficult for me to find a 
new job in my field. I think the settlement is bad, and hope that 
you create a stronger punishment for Microsoft.
    Thanks,
    Michael Richey
    1776 Park Trail NE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49525



MTC-00015714

From: Chris Sexton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement for the MS Antitrust case is 
lacking in several areas but I would like to point out one of the 
definitions defined in the PFJ is quite weak.
    ``Microsoft Middleware'' was defined to mean application 
software that presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new 
applications without reference to the underlying operating system.
    This allows Microsoft to exclude software from being covered by 
changing product version numbers or changing distribution methods 
for their software and operating systems. Seems like this is the 
opposite of what it intended--based on this loose definition, there 
isnt much of a reason to restrict the deemed ``Microsoft 
middleware''. It kind of defeats the purpose, doesnt it?
    I seriously believe that the proposed final judgement should be 
revised in many areas or Microsoft will continue their practices as 
they do today.
    Chris Sexton, Student
    NC State University



MTC-00015715

From: Doug Kartio
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    I wish to voice my option that the restrictions placed on 
Microsoft are not restrictive enough. Microsoft has for the past 20 
years has been lying, stealing and steamrolling every good computer 
innovation that has been in direct or indirect competition with 
them.
    I have watched great products be pushed out of the market, 
companies put into bankruptcy, and others threatened with legal 
action even though Microsoft had no legal right to do so, other then 
to have them stop competing against them.
    Microsoft has made many fortunes off the work and sweat of 
others and is proving to many people that ?CRIME DOES PAY?. For a 
company that lied and falsified evidence in the previous trial, it 
is hard to believe that they have not been severally punished for 
their crimes. Had this been a small ?Mom and Pop? shop they would 
have been had accountable and have been punished, but since it is 
one of the world's largest companies, they are getting away with 
their actions. The laws of the country are in place to protect ALL 
people/companies regardless of color, race, creed or religion/size 
or wealth.
    Please do what is right and punish Microsoft for the pain and 
suffering it has caused to the computer and high tech industry. I 
have been working in this sector for over 14 years and have never 
seen a more negative impact on this industry then I have with 
Microsoft.
    Microsoft needs to open its system (APIs and code) so that other 
companies can write code that works properly with windows. Microsoft 
has places all types of hidden functions and methods that allow 
Microsoft developed products to work better and faster then their 
competitors due to these hidden calls.
    Microsoft also needs to be fined in a way that it and all other 
companies, that may try and monopolize a sector of industry, that 
crime does NOT pay. This will be largest company fine in history, 
but for a company that has $30--$70 billion dollars in cash in the 
bank it needs to be. Anything else would like fining a millionaire 
$100 for using the carpool lane when he is by himself. Do you really 
think he cares? Has he learned his lesson? NO! He spends more then 
that on a drink at the yacht club.
    I also personally believe that breaking Microsoft into 3 
different groups; one that handles the operating system, one that 
handles the internet development and another that handles all the 
desktop publishing and related software is the best way to achieve a 
truly competitive market within the computer industry. I realize 
that this options, no longer seems to be on the table, but it is 
honestly the best way.
    Thank You
    Doug Kartio
    Senior Internet Consultant
    Object Partners, Inc.
    612-991-4475
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015716

From: nicolas caudle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlment
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ will not 
prevent Microsoft from doing this in the future. Thsi accounts to a 
mere slap-on-the-wrist for them. I am in favor of Microsoft helping 
out schools, but let them give the school systems money instead of 
hardware and MS software. This way the schools *CHOOSE* what types 
of computer systems they want to use(whether it be Apple, Microsoft, 
Linux, etc...), as oppossed to Microsoft flatly giving them 
hardware(antiquated hardware too), and software that automatically 
means revenue for Microsoft in the future.
    thank you,
    Nicolas Caudle



MTC-00015717

From: Krishna Donepudi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with Microsoft's business tactics and I believe 
they should be properly punished. The proposed settlement is a bad 
idea.



MTC-00015718

From: Michael Harszlak
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is NOT in the best interests 
of consumers; will NOT free up competition in the marketplace, and 
will only provide Microsoft further opportunities to extend their 
illegal monopolies.



MTC-00015719

From: Bill Christens-Barry

[[Page 26133]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: frightened by failure of the proposed Microsoft Settlement 
to address and deter unlawful activities
    As an American citizen and consumer, I am troubled and 
frightened by the failure of the proposed judgement to address 
findings in the Microsoft antitrust case. THIS JUDGEMENT FAILS TO 
IMPOSE ADEQUATE REMEDIES TO THE CASE FINDINGS, and fails to utilize 
the broader range of remedies that may be legally and prudently 
availed.
    There is NO EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED REMEDIES are adequately 
punish past illegal or WILL PREVENT FUTURE HARMFUL, ILLEGAL 
ACTIVITY. It is frightening to consider what lesson might be taken 
from this failure by other potential monopolists and economic 
bullies. Is this a country of personal and corporate accountability, 
or not?
    As a user of a broad range of computer software and hardware 
products, spanning the range of commercially available operating 
systems, I have found my FREEDOM to choose on the basis of PRICE and 
PERFORMANCE has been undermined by Microsoft's widespread and 
apparently instinctive work to the ILLEGALLY SUBVERT COMPETITION.
    I request that my government pursue more appropriate and further 
means of PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM FROM 
MICROSOFT in this matter.
    Thany you,
    WIlliam A. Christens-Barry
    4009 St. Johns Lane
    Ellicott City, MD 21042
    Bill Christens-Barry, PhD
    Equipoise Imaging, LLC
    [email protected]
    http://www.eqpi.net



MTC-00015720

From: Will Backman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement does not go far enough. 
Microsoft has been found to use its monopoly position in an illegal 
manner, and it should not be trusted with a monopoly position. More 
should be done to break the monopoly, not just punish it.
    William H. Backman
    Waterville, Maine 04901



MTC-00015721

From: Charles Eakins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor,
    I think the purposed settlement is not enough, to quell 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. They continue to do the same 
things they were found guilty of, to this day. That says allot about 
a corporation, and or even an individual. If the company was serious 
about complying with the court, they would have changed they're 
behavior, before they are ordered to do so by the court. To me this 
seems like a big joke to Microsoft, and I think they need to be 
punished more, possibly be broken up. I have been in the computer 
industry for over 10 years, even having worked for Microsoft. It was 
a fun company to work for, even though I disagree with some of 
they're ethical things.
    Charles Eakins
    Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
    AppWorx Corp.
    1-877-APPWORX
    +1.425.644.2121x104
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Website: http://www.appworx.com



MTC-00015722

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. The 
proposed settlement will do nothing to change Microsofts 
monopolistic acts. In that case, what use was the trial?
    IMO, Microsoft is not only a monopoly, but a bad company with 
bad business ethics in general. How much longer do people have to 
bear putting up with this? I understand that the average person does 
not fully comprehend whats at stake now or in the future if 
Microsoft continues its current practices. But You have the power to 
change that now.
    If not now, then when?
    Joe Topjian
    Oakdale, PA
    [email protected]



MTC-00015723

From: Chris Zappanti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I must voice my strong opinion against the current wording of 
the Microsoft Settlement. Microsoft is convinced it has never done a 
wrong, is doing no wrong, and will do no wrong in the future. 
Without a stringent and explicitly worded remedy they'll do exactly 
what they did before: skirt the issue, push past the spirit of the 
earlier remedy by parsing every word they can, or flat out ignoring 
what is not conducive to their behavior in the name of 
``consumers.''
    Microsoft, as part of the agreement, should be REQUIRED to admit 
in print its guilt on conduct where the courts have upheld already. 
If it brings them lawsuits tough luck--if they had chosen to play 
openly and fairly in the first place they would not be here.
    Don't let them off the hook with a slap!!! Too many of us in 
this field tire of seeing them run rough-shod over companies who had 
the potential and/or product to solve a problem much more 
efficiently than Microsoft did, only to see them get run over when 
the product began to attract attention.
    They're like a drunken babbling fool--a good slap to the head is 
the only way to get their attention.
    Thank you,
    Chris Zappanti, CNE4 CNE5 A+
    Personalized Computer Systems, Inc.
    3033 S. Kettering Blvd. Suite 110
    Dayton, OH 45439
    937.296.7416
    937.298.3008 (fax)
    [email protected]



MTC-00015724

From: Henry W. Miller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft does nothing to solve the 
issues that have brought this case to court.
    Microsoft has been found to have a monopoly on Intel compatible 
operating systems, and further they have used this monopoly to 
destroy competitors. There is nothing in the proposed settlement 
that would prevent Microsoft from destroying another competitor. As 
such it is not a good settlement. Microsoft appears to be trying to 
get clauses in the final settlement that would allow them to keep 
secret anything related to security. This is unnecessary well 
designed security measures do not lose their value when the attacker 
knows how they work. Vaults are rated by how long it would take a 
thief who has access to the design to break in. In computers we have 
discovered that secret security measures are eventually broken by 
the computer criminals who then use them against those who trust 
them. I urge the court to reject the proposed settlement or modify 
it so that Microsoft will not use their monopoly to harm 
competitors.
    Henry Miller
    (763) 391-1271



MTC-00015725

From: Laura Hale
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it Concerns:
    I have read the Proposed Final Judgement in the Antitrust case 
against Microsoft and still have concerns that this settlement will 
not keep Microsoft from engaging in illegal and anticompetitive 
practices. The current proposed settlement includes loopholes that 
will allow Microsoft to continue to retaliate against companies and 
end users that choose alternative operating systems, and does not 
put in place an adequate system for investigating future 
infringements by Microsoft. As someone who has worked with 
technology, specifically technology in nonprofit organizations, I 
have seen the unsatisfactory results of years of monopolistic 
behavior from Microsoft and I cannot, in good conscience, recommend 
or support it this proposed final judgement.
    However, I do believe that the amendments put forth by the nine 
states Attorneys'' General and Corporation Counsel from the District 
of Columbia who did not agree to the proposed settlement is more 
comprehensive and will curb Microsoft's illegal monopolistic 
practices. It addresses some of the larger issues missing in the 
first proposal by creating a ``Special Master'' with investigative 
powers that will be able to react quickly to future infractions, and 
broadening some of the narrow definitions given for terms like API 
and Windows. I support the inclusion of policies to require 
Microsoft to:

[[Page 26134]]

    1. offer a version of Windows with minimal preinstalled 
software, allowing consumers to better choose which software 
components they want installed on their computers when originally 
purchased;
    2. package ``middleware'' software with Windows XP that will 
allow software applications to run across different operating 
systems, which will cut down on the myriad of compatibility issues 
users currently face.
    3. share the programming code of Internet Explorer, the 
company's Internet browser, with other software developers, 
preventing Microsoft from monopolizing Internet access; and
    4. allow other software developers to port Microsoft's Office 
software suite for use on non-Windows operating systems, permitting 
non-Windows users to use Microsoft's other products if they choose.
    I whole heartedly urge the Court to find that the U.S. 
Department of Justice proposed final judgement is not in the best 
interest of the public and to consider the remedies offered by the 
Attorneys'' General and Corporation Counsel from the District of 
Columbia.
    Sincerely,
    Laura Hale
    S. Burlington VT



MTC-00015726

From: Eric Spiegelberg
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is an extremely bad idea. The 
government is clearly bowing to Microsoft special interest groups. 
The corrective measures are extremely light and will not accomplish 
any change in anti-competitive behavior. Microsoft has continued to 
practice anti-competitive behavior even while this case has been 
before a judicial court. Microsoft has also continued to spread its 
stranglehold on the technology sector by entering new markets and 
the continuation of bully tactics. It's a shame that the United 
States government is afraid to deal with this corporation within the 
guidelines of the law. I have a BS in Computer Science and work 
within the software industry. I use Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
products daily and see this issue clearly without bias. I have 
formed my opinion after years of industry observation, by being well 
educated on the subject, and weighing the facts. Obviously Microsoft 
is buying their way out of the situation and it's unfortunate that 
most people, including the Justice Department, don't have the 
technical knowledge to realize what anti-competitive tactics they 
use to maintain their monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Spiegelberg



MTC-00015727

From: Tom Ross
To: microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I am opposed to the current proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust case. I feel it is not harsh enough and does not do 
justice. It does not open up any chance for new operating systems in 
the market.



MTC-00015728

From: Eric Sheffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) is severely 
flawed. There are many inconsistencies between definitions outlined 
in the Court's Finding of Fact and those in the PFJ that introduce 
loopholes in the remedy which will enable Microsoft to continue the 
monopolistic and anticompetitve behavior that spurred the suit. If 
these loopholes are not addressed, then the years of litigation and 
vast sums expended on behalf of American consumers will be for 
naught.
    Specifically, four definitions outlined in the PFJ need to be 
altered to close these loopholes. They are:
    (1) Definition A: ``API''--This PFJ definition of API pertains 
only to interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Windows, and excludes Windows APIs used by application programs. As 
written, this definition might omit important APIs such as the 
Microsoft Installer APIs, or APIs introduced into Windows to 
specifically support Microsoft application software.
    (2) Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''--The PFJ definition 
of ``Microsoft Middleware'' enables Microsoft to exclude any 
software from being covered by the definition in by changing product 
version numbers or changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its 
middleware. The Court's Finding of Fact definition, which defines 
middleware as software that itself presents a set of APIs which 
enable new applications to be written without reference to the 
underlying operating system, should instead be adopted.
    (3) Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''--This PFJ 
definition specifically excludes several Microsoft products for or 
on which developers create applications using underlying APIs. 
Excluded are Microsoft.NET and Microsoft C#, Microsoft Outlook and 
Microsoft Exchange, and Microsoft Office and its component 
applications (Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint 
and Microsoft Access). These products should be included in the 
definition because they provide important APIs for application 
development.
    (4) Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''--This PFJ 
definition includes Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, 
Windows XP Professional and their successors yet excludes the 
operating system products Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Windows 
CE. Many applications are available that will run without 
modification on both the included and excluded operating system 
products. This definition should include an operating system that an 
execute programs written to the Windows API. Without modification to 
these definitions, I believe this PFJ, if adopted, will provide 
enough loopholes to enable Microsoft to escape justice.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Sheffer



MTC-00015729

From: Joe Henley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is WRONG! Please push for 
much stronger penalties for this monopolist. They are hurting 
consumers such as me who want more choice in our operating and 
applications systems.
    Thanks!
    Joe Henley



MTC-00015730

From: Aaron E. Ross
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom is may concern,
    As a part of the comment process I would like to register my 
unhappiness with the current proposed settlement.
    Unless Microsoft is required to publish open API'S and file 
formats, it will continue to enjoy an unchallenged monopoly and 
benefit from the continuing effects of ``lock-in''. On the other 
hand, as Scott Rosenberg pointed out, With Microsoft's APIs and file 
formats fully standardized, documented and published, other software 
vendors could compete fairly--which, after all, is what antitrust 
laws are supposed to promote. We might then be faced with a welcome 
but long unfamiliar sight: a healthy software market, driven, as 
today's processor market is, by genuine competition.
    I hope that you seriously consider the remedies laid out by GNU 
and FSF in the following document: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/
microsoft-antitrust.html, which I have attached.
    Thank you,
    Aaron Ross
    aaron ross
    baldwin language technologies
    email [email protected]
    phone 215 545 6428
    With the Microsoft antitrust trial moving toward a conclusion, 
the question of what to demand of Microsoft if it loses is coming to 
the fore. Ralph Nader is even [when this was written, in March 1999] 
organizing a conference about the question.
    The obvious answers--to restrict contracts between Microsoft and 
computer manufacturers, or to break up the company--will not make a 
crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of 
computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is 
happening anyway. The latter would mainly help other proprietary 
application developers compete, which would only offer users 
alternative ways to let go of their freedom.
    So I propose three remedies that would help enable operating 
systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting 
users'' freedom. These three remedies directly address the three 
biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and to 
giving them the capability of running

[[Page 26135]]

programs written for Windows. They also directly address the methods 
Microsoft has said (in the ``Halloween documents'') it will use to 
obstruct free software. It would be most effective to use all three 
of these remedies together.
    Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications 
protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's 
favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
    To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other 
organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule 
must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release 
an implementation of it.
    It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin 
implementation of an interface before the publication of the 
interface specifications, provided that they release the 
specifications simultaneously with the implementation.
    Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other 
software developers complain that the published documentation fails 
to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain 
job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. 
Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) would have to be answered.
    Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the 
European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute.
    Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the 
field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to 
other fields, those other fields could be included in this 
requirement, or they could be exempt.) This would block the other 
tactic Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents 
to block development of free software.
    We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense 
or mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all 
patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense 
means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can join--even 
people who have no patents of their own. The pool would license all 
members'' patents to all members.
    It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does 
no good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed 
to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it 
gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to 
implement it.
    Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 
to support the same hardware.
    Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's 
doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of 
the free operating systems that can provide competition for Windows. 
To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a settlement is 
negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of provision in it is 
not impossible--it would be a matter of negotiation.
    This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to 
release source code for some part of Windows. It is not clear 
whether that would imply making it free software, or which part of 
Windows it might be. But if Microsoft does make some important part 
of Windows free software, it could solve these problems as regards 
that part. (It could also be a contribution to the free software 
community, if the software in question could be useful for purposes 
other than running other proprietary Microsoft software.)
    However, having the use as free software of a part of Windows is 
less crucial than being permitted to implement all parts. The 
remedies proposed above are what we really need. They will clear the 
way for us to develop a truly superior alternative to Microsoft 
Windows, in whatever area Microsoft does not make Windows free 
software.



MTC-00015731

From: Robert O'Callahan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe the proposed settlement is inadequate and will not be 
sufficient to redress the antitrust offences of which Microsoft has 
been convicted, nor will it deter them from committing future 
offences. The Department of Justice has had very little success in 
enforcing its previous consent decree with Microsoft; we have no 
evidence that this decree will fare better. It's particularly 
outrageous that the penalty for violating this new decree will be to 
extend the decree for another two years! A toothless decree extended 
for two years is still toothless.
    Furthermore, the terms of the proposed decree, even if adhered 
to, simply require Microsoft to act more reasonably in the future. 
They do nothing to punish it for past misbehavior, and thus there is 
little deterrent effect. Microsoft must be subjected to significant 
material penalties to deprive it of the fruits of its illegal 
actions, or it will (correctly) view those actions as profitable, 
and repeat them.
    My background: I am a computer science researcher. I just 
graduated from Carnegie Mellon University with a PhD in computer 
science. My thesis won honours in the 2001 ACM Doctoral Dissertation 
Awards. I have recently joined IBM's Research Division, but of 
course I speak only for myself.
    Sincerely,
    Robert O'Callahan



MTC-00015732

From: Wayne McCullough
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement with Microsoft Corporation. 
Microsoft has illegally used it's monopoly, and the settlement 
leaves the monopoly fully in the hands of the company that has 
misused it in the first place.
    If a friend of mine were to use my car without permission (ie, 
steal my car) and then is stopped and found to be in possession of 
an illegal substance, the federal government would have no problem 
with depriving me of my property even though I didn't commit a 
crime. But when a corporation uses it's property to repeatedly 
commit crimes, as Microsoft has done, the federal government is 
content to just watch the corporation harder. The justice department 
has a very strange definition of justice.
    Wayne McCullough



MTC-00015733

From: Doug Burks
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern;
    The Proposed Final Judgment in the Microsoft settlement has many 
flaws. The three most glaring of these flaws are: (excerpted from 
Dan Kegel's letter at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html)
    (1) ``Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.''
    (2) ``The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs 
are not covered.''
    (3) ``The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.''
    It would be greatly appreciated if these three points, as well 
as the other points made by Mr. Kegel at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html are taken into further consideration.
    Thanks,
    Doug Burks
    Sytems Administrator
    Augusta Service Co., Inc.



MTC-00015734

From: Paul Rydell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement regarding Microsoft is a bad 
idea.
    Paul Rydell



MTC-00015735

From: Paul Danckaert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a professional in the computer industry, I have watched for 
many years how Microsoft's anti-competitve practices have damaged 
the industry. Microsoft has demonstrated that it will not compete 
fairly on cost, on packaging/bundling, or on agreements or 
relationships. This is not an advantage to the end user. Despite the 
facade of change, the actual rate of change is less, and the small 
companies or competitors who induce change are bought out or swept 
away. The only actual competitor appears to be the open-source/Linux 
environment, and this is because the cost can be ruled out.

[[Page 26136]]

    Do not hand Microsoft an easy victory, which would be given to 
them if they only receive a slap on the wrist. They need to be 
reined in and controlled, much as any other monopoly has been 
handled in the past.
    Thank You,
    Paul



MTC-00015736

From: Tom Clark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing this message to comment on the proposed final 
judgement in the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust case.
    The proposed final judgement does not serve the public interest. 
In particular, the proposed final judgement does not include an 
provision allowing users to replace Microsoft.NET with competing 
middleware. Since Microsoft.NET is central to to Microsoft's new 
development efforts, the failure to include such a provision renders 
the proposed judgement ineffective.
    Tom Clark
    Systems Administrator
    Dept. of Mathematics & Computer Science
    SUNY Fredonia



MTC-00015737

From: M A Lytle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a Information Technology worker with 12 years in the 
business, I am writing to strongly object to the current proposed 
Microsoft settlement. In every way possible, this document is 
crafted to reward Microsoft for unethical behavior and give them the 
green light to continue business as usual. This settlement is not in 
the public interest, period.
    In how many ways is this settlement flawed? In as many ways as 
possible, and that is no exaggeration. I have watched the toxic 
effects of the lack of competition in my own company, where prices 
for Microsoft's software have risen continuously while computer 
hardware prices have plummeted in the same time period. I have 
watched company executives bow down before the monopolistic might of 
Microsoft to install expensive upgrades to the whole computer 
complement of the company where I work, only to watch the 
frustration of new users who have regarded the changes as 
unnecessary and confusing, and the costs were often absorbed by 
arguing that we have to ``keep up'' as though we were in some kind 
of a race. The combined capital expenditure of all of the major 
corporations over the last 10 years has amounted to a hidden tax , 
that has undoubtedly shown up in higher prices for everything we 
buy, as individuals or companies. And remember that all major 
software categories were already present since the early to mid 
1990's so no new productivity has been achieved since then, only 
spiraling(upward) software fees. This has happened because no new 
software firms, with new ideas, can appear and survive in the 
current business environment, with the present business and legal 
tactics of Microsoft unabated.
    These are just the effects, the things I have seen, in the real 
world, far removed from the world of the media and the courts, as 
this trial has laboriously traveled through the legal system, to be 
apparently dead-ended as irrelevant, now that the national mood is 
that the powerful are exempt from law or standards of conduct. As I 
write this you can see I don't believe this, no intelligent person 
today lacks cynicism about the justice system, but no intelligent 
person, can afford to give up, either. If we stop caring, we are 
truly lost.
    In summary, I implore you as a citizen to reject this settlement 
as ineffective, ingenuous, and destructive of the values of 
competition and openness that once made us great, as a nation. 
Please restore us to greatness, greatness as defined by fairness for 
all, not just for the powerful.
    Sincerely yours,
    Mark A. Lytle
    Network Analyst
    Houston, Texas



MTC-00015738

From: Kevin White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice,
    I'd like to take a minute of your time to voice my opinion in 
opposition to the current Proposed Final Judegment against the 
Microsoft Corporation. As an avid user of OpenSource products, I 
feel that consumers should have a choice when purchasing a new PC as 
to what kind of software is loaded on that machine. It has come to 
my attention that your Proposed Final Judegment still allows 
Microsoft to stangle OEM's in an anticompetitive way. According to 
Section III.A.2. Microsoft may retaliate against any OEM that ships 
Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but no 
Microsoft operating system. This provision will allow Microsoft to 
stifle the coice of the consumer.
    Consumers should have the right to either purchase a new 
computer system without any operating system, or with an operating 
system that directly competes with Microsoft. It has already been 
argued in the Central District of California court case, Adobe vs 
Softman, that that consumers can resell bundled software, no matter 
what the EULA, or End User License Agreement, stipulates. In the 
case of Microsoft's software, the operating system is tied to the 
OEM bios hardware of the PC. Even if a consumer wanted to sell their 
copy of windows to recoup their loss they would be unable to do so. 
The link between the OS and the OEM bios would prevent a user from 
installing the software on any other machine, making it impossible 
for the consumer have a choice at the time of purchase.
    In conclusion, I would ask the Department of Justice to stand 
back and take a look at this situation again. There are MANY more 
reasons to dislike the proposed final judgement, more than I care to 
go into. Please take into consideration the letters and concers of 
the OpenSource community when making your decision.
    Thank You,
    Kevin White
    Newbern, TN
    A+ Certified Computer Technician
    Linux+ Certified



MTC-00015739

From: Tony Asleson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. Microsoft has been deemed a monopoly and should be 
treated as such. The proposed settlement will not make a significant 
difference to the monopolistic power Microsoft has on the industry.
    Competition is good for consumers, because when consumers have a 
choice they can choose the best solution. Companies in competition 
must compete to survive. A market absent of competition will 
stagnate and is not conducive to innovation. Significant changes 
need to be put in place to restore software competition in the 
personal software computer industry.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Asleson



MTC-00015740

From: J. Nathan Matias
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I would like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    As a technologist who has to get work done every day and as a 
person who is trying to escape the grip of Microsoft's monopoly, I 
have several concerns about the proposed settlement.
    First, I find it disturbing that the proposed settlement does 
not adequately prohibit Microsoft from using monopolistic tactics 
against Open Source software. Though I do some Open Source 
programming for corporations, I also spend my personal time writing 
software for my personal use and the enjoyment of others. Certain 
Microsoft licensing tactics used in the past could prohibit users 
from installing my software on their computers or prevent companies 
from distributing my software on the same media as Microsoft 
products. This restrictive practice of Microsoft will not be curbed 
in the proposed settlement.
    As a programmer, I am excited about the access to APIs that may 
result from this settlement, but I find that the definition of API 
is limited so as to be of little use to me. APIs that are necessary 
to create a reasonably good application are not included in the 
definition; these bare patches in the settlement would make my use 
of Microsoft APIs (as defined in the settlement proposal) nearly 
impossible.
    The proposed settlement rightfully allows users to replace 
Microsoft's Java software. However, this is a headless arrow, for

[[Page 26137]]

Microsoft itself is replacing Java ... with a new technology called 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware.
    This brings me to another point. I find the terms much too 
specific. This allows Microsoft to continue its long-standing 
monopolistic tradition of hijacking new technologies when old ones 
no longer become profitable. It is very likely that within a few 
years the settlement will no longer apply, since the technology 
sector innovates so quickly and changes so rapidly. Unfortunately, 
such progress, which should benefit the average person most of all, 
would only serve to bring Microsoft out from under the too-specific 
terms of the proposed settlement.
    One place where the settlement proposal is too specific is in 
the actual Microsoft operating systems that are discussed. Several 
Windows operating systems, such as Windows CE, the X-Box operating 
system, Pocket PC, and the Windows XP Tablet PC edition all use the 
same Windows API, but are not covered in the terms of the proposal. 
This is a dangerous omission in the proposal, as it would allow 
Microsoft to refocus on those products not discussed in the 
settlement, effectively sidestepping the settlement's provisions.
    Furthermore, the proposal allows Microsoft to retaliate against 
any OEM that ships Personal Computers containing a competing 
Operating System but no Microsoft operating system. Why guarantee 
Microsoft its monopoly by assuming unequivocal 100% monopoly in the 
proposal? If you want to ensure competition, then make sure 
Microsoft cannot apply its old tricks towards OEMs who foster 
competition by selling computers with other OSs.
    Another of Microsoft's old tricks is to include intentional 
incompatibilities in supposedly standards-compliant software to 
force users to follow the monopoly. The proposal speaks nothing of 
this practice, which is one which we technologists feel the bite of 
every day whenever we look at a web site, connect to the network, or 
write a piece of software.
    We technologists also feel the bite of Microsoft when we attempt 
to write software that is compatibile with Microsoft Office and 
other productivity software. File formats used by Microsoft are 
highly secret, which enforces that one either pay huge licensing 
prices or just use a Microsoft solution. These file formats are 
truly the iron grip through which Microsoft extends and keeps its 
monopoly. Time and time again I have suggested to people that they 
use competing office or productivity software, and time and time 
again the response is that if it doesn't work with Office, then it's 
too dangerous to use.
    Unfortunately, the problem is not on the part of the third-party 
software; the problem lies with Microsoft's monopolistic 
manipulation of file formats. Thank you for your time and 
consideration; I trust that the final result of this whole process 
will be a technology industry that once again is a garden of 
innovation and flowering beauty rather than the muddled mess we now 
have on our hands.
    J. Nathan Matias



MTC-00015741

From: Matt Graham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. The settlement does not address problems 
with Microsoft's closed file formats, meaning that any business with 
many documents in these formats have no clear upgrade path or way to 
escape from Microsoft. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Sincerely,
    Matt Graham
    5400 W Mall Dr #3113
    Lansing, MI 48917



MTC-00015742

From: Chris Blessing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is imperative that MS be punished for their doings. I 
disagree with the settlement proposed thus far.
    Chris Blessing
    [email protected]
    http://www.330i.net



MTC-00015743

From: Roman Meytin
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think its terrible that a company that so clearly engages in 
anticompetitive practices is going to get off so easy. If this were 
happenning in any other industry this would have been stopped long 
ago.
    One of the greatest things that attracted me to computers and 
computer science was that one person or a small group of people 
could make a huge impact in the industry and on the rest of the 
world.
    Companies like apple and palm practically grew out of garages. 
Computer Scientist have sometime individually made contributions 
that shook the world, yet as long a s microsoft is in ``power'' it 
seems that it is very difficult for free-thinkers to accomplish 
anything unless they were playing by MS rules and are using MS 
tools.
    Many other world powers and governments are turning to 
alternative solutions. And if US does not take a stand on this issue 
we will soon be left far behind the rest of the world; Using cludgy 
software because we have little choice.
    Regards,
    Roman Meytin
    Opinions stated in this email are my own and do not necesarally 
represent those of my employer.



MTC-00015744

From: John Franks
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Opposition to Settlement
    I wish to record my strong opposition to the proposed settlement 
of the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    While there has been great harm to consumers in general caused 
by Microsoft practices and the proposed settlement does little or 
nothing to prevent continuation of these practices, I would like to 
focus on one single thing.
    Microsoft has done nearly irreparable damage to the free 
exchange of ideas in written form through its monopoly of 
information formats. There is no need for written documents not to 
be interchangeable.
    Microsoft Word was designed and is maintained in such a way as 
to make exchange with other programs difficult or impossible. This 
forces many people to purchase MS Word who do not wish to use it. 
The same type of monopoly is being pursued in other formats, music 
and video foremost among them. The monopoly in all these formats is 
unnatural and created only for financial gain. It could only be 
created by leveraging the operating system monopoly which Microsoft 
enjoys. Microsoft has proven its success at creating new format 
monopolies by bundling software with the operating system which only 
uses its proprietary formats.
    The current proposed settlement does nothing to remedy this.
    Sincerely,
    John Franks
    Professor of Mathematics
    Northwestern University



MTC-00015745

From: Richard Sachen, Jr.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read with interest the continuing legal battles over 
Microsoft's monopoly. While quick resolution has eluded us and the 
original victim of Microsoft's illegal practices, Netscape, has 
disappeared as a competitor, the case has made a change in the 
marketplace. Unlike the early 90s, people with computer related 
ideas now think of IPOs rather than being bought out by Microsoft.
    To the point, I would like to suggest a possible penalty for 
Microsoft's illegal actions that may have more effect and cost less 
to enforce than the government's proposed remedy. Since Microsoft 
has been convicted of abusing their monopoly power, perhaps a 
suspension of enforcement of their government held monopolies (some 
or all patents, trademarks, and/or copyrights) for a period of 
time--say from the release of Windows 95 to 2002, approximately 6 
years. By the government simply refusing to uphold Microsoft's 
monopoly power on patents and copyrights, enforcement costs are 
zero. The effect of such a move would be to open up competition 
dramatically.
    I am not a lawyer and do not know if this is among the legal 
remedies available to the court, but removing government enforcement 
of a monopolist's monopoly power in patents and/or copyrights seems 
a simple and effective punishment.
    Thank you for your consideration,
    Richard Sachen

[[Page 26138]]

    471 Central Avenue
    Mountain View, CA



MTC-00015746

From: Jason Gibson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
    The proposed settlement is insufficient. It does not correctly 
address the issues at hand.



MTC-00015747

From: Bob Laskey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to you to let you know that I, as a US citizen, am 
opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement in the anti-trust case. 
I having been working in the computer field for over ten years and I 
have personally witnessed Microsoft go from being an innovator to a 
monopoly that actively uses its monopoly power to crush competition 
and artificially raise its prices. One detail of the settlement 
which I find absolutely ludicrous is the idea of Microsoft donating 
PC's to schools with its Windows operating system installed on them. 
This certainly does not punish Microsoft. If anything, this 
strengthens Microsofts monopoly of operating systems.
    It is my opinion that this settlement is much too lenient on 
Microsoft. It does not do enough to punish Microsoft, or prevent it 
from abusing its monopoly power in the future.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Laskey
    Annapolis, MD.



MTC-00015748

From: Phillip Bashor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please settle this lawsuit as soon as possible. Our country 
needs to be over such legal turmoil and focus its attention on 
rebuilding our economy and our national confidence that was so 
devastated by the events of 9/11 and the crashing of the stock 
market.
    I believe that the fall of the stock market was due to the 
decision by Judge Jackson against Microsoft. The dates coincide, but 
in fact his decision stifled innovation and the ability of our 
greatest inventors to precede with their new ideas.....
    As of today, 1/23/02, I just read about a new lawsuit filed by 
AOL against Microsoft concerning its Netscape browser. I have used 
Netscape a few times and it is still far inferior to all browsers. 
Its like the former automobile, the Yugo. I hope no taxpayers money 
will be wasted on pursuing this new issue which is ludicrous and 
insensible.
    Microsoft is leading the technology race because its products 
are far superior than anything yet invented. If someone can create a 
better product, the American people would buy it; as in a few cases 
they have. But generally most products being sold by other tech 
companies are inferior clones of already invented products.
    I am appalled at the fact that certain companies have used the 
American legal system to attack and try to destroy a company, 
Microsoft. They have done this only for the reason that their 
products are not being bought by the American consumer; for good 
reason.
    350 years ago, Antonius Stradivarius and his student Guisippe 
Guarnarius figured out how to make a violin that to this day is the 
violin of choice for every violinist. What would happen if 350 years 
ago Billy Smith had the savvy lawyers and advisors to convince a 
government that Stradivarius'' product was too good? Civilization 
would have taken a giant step backward.
    Please don't let this happen, especially in this time of 
turmoil.
    Sincerely your,
    Phillip Bashor
    7 Highland Ave.
    Darien, CT 06820



MTC-00015749

From: Ronald Kronz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am bitterly disappointed because the proposed settlement fails 
to force Microsoft to abandon its anticompetitive practices. Under 
the proposed settlement, Microsoft would continue to be allowed to 
characterize any software module as ``part of the operating 
system'', thereby avoiding their obligation to share programming 
interface specifications with other companies.
    The most clear indication of the ineffectiveness of this 
proposed settlement is the fact that Microsoft is using Windows XP 
and its .net initiative to attempt to monopolize internet 
authentication and e-business. These guys (Microsoft) think they are 
free to continue extending their OS monopoly. Strong provisions are 
needed in the settlement of the current case to convince them 
otherwise.
    Ronald Kronz



MTC-00015750

From: Tom Watson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not go through with the proposed settlement. This 
would be a travesty to the American people. Microsoft's dominance in 
operating system and office software has not been won because they 
are superior products. Their unlawful tactics have smashed many 
competitors. This has the effect of dramatically slowing the 
development of software solutions across the board.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Watson
    Senior Consultant
    6805 Capital of Texas Highway; Ste 370
    Austin, TX. 78731
    Ph. 512.735.4351



MTC-00015751

From: Rick Nicoletti
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading the proposed settlement with Microsoft, I've come 
to the conclusion that it's just NOT A GOOD THING. It's got so many 
loopholes and exceptions as render it ineffective.
    Please reconsider this.
    Richard Nicoletti
    Southborough, MA



MTC-00015752

From: rj bertsche
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    i, personally, think that microsoft has given up the notion that 
they have any responsibility to uphold any sort of law. as a 
citizen, i cannot steal or threaten others, or extort others into 
buying things from me. i don't see why they should be held to a 
different standard than i am. this settlement is so weak as to be 
laughable. microsoft has demonstrated time and again their lack of 
respect for the justice system and their previous ``settlements'.. 
and even now, they buy up property after property, and you aren't 
stopping them.
    i pay taxes, and as a taxpayer, i'm tired of their lawlessness 
and ego. is our government bought and purchased? fix this injustice.
    rj bertsche



MTC-00015753

From: Peter Cullen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a software engineer with over 13 years of experience, I would 
like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in United 
States v. Microsoft. I believe the PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Anticompetitive License Terms currently used by Microsoft. Microsoft 
currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep Open Source 
applications from running on Windows. Open source development is one 
the most important software development paradigms in the world 
today. Microsoft should not be allowed to prevent applications from 
running on Windows simply because they are licensed as Open Source 
software. Clearly, Microsoft sees Open Source development as a 
threat and is taking measures to protect their monopoly. Microsoft 
has taken this approach in the past with Netscape Navigator and Sun 
Microsystems Java, to name only two. Their actions have been upheld 
in the courts an monopolistic, yet the PFJ does not go far enough in 
preventing Microsoft from using the same behaviors in the future.
    Therefore, I believe the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the 
public interest, and should not be adopted without modifications 
that address this issue.
    Sincerely,
    Peter B. Cullen



MTC-00015754

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I think the proposed settlement with MS stinks. Far better would 
be to break them up into three companies: apps, OS, and hardware. 
Once that is done, they would

[[Page 26139]]

have a vested interest in interoperability and ``playing well with 
others''.
    Regards,
    Dave



MTC-00015755

From: John Finnegan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the Department of Justice's proposed settlement 
with Microsoft is inadequate. It will allow Microsoft to maintain 
it's monopoly on the PC market and will not end Microsoft's anti-
competitive behavior.
    John Finnegan
    Raleigh, NC



MTC-00015756

From: Walt Berstler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have kept up to date and informed regarding the Microsoft 
settlement and the Tunney Act. I would like to express my opinion 
that Microsoft does appear to act in a non-professional, anti-
competitive manner. I feel that the basis for the stronghold of 
American capitalism is the ability for everyone to improve the 
status quo and offer a better product or service than the current 
provisions. Microsoft does not give that ability to its competition, 
and therefore the laws in place regarding anti-trust and monopolies 
must be abided by.
    Walt Berstler



MTC-00015757

From: Roger Michael Seip
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement.
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement. 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are inconsistent with both 
American free-enterprise and American law. These practices weaken 
competition and restrain innovation. The resulting less efficient 
market employees fewer Americans and produces fewer products. The 
products that are produced are of lesser quality but higher cost 
than could be produced in a more efficient and competitive market.
    The proposed settlement is too weak. The proposed settlement 
should be discarded; a new settlement, if sought, should punish 
Microsoft severely enough to dissuade it from engaging in anti-
competitive behaviors in the future.
    Thank you,
    Roger Michael Seip
    5010 Erbs Bridge Road
    Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-2430



MTC-00015758

From: Steve Husty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft-proposed settlement is insufficient and 
unacceptable.
    While I could write volumes about particular points, I won't 
waste my time. Microsoft cannot, yet again, be allowed to willfully 
break the laws of the US and go unpunished. Please ``go back to the 
drawing board'', or whatever court-equivalent process is required in 
order to recast the punishment for these crimes. I urge the courts 
to consider the entirety of the crime, and impose an equivalent and 
representative punishment.
    Respectfully,
    Steve Husty



MTC-00015759

From: Carl Mueller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The facts:
    --Microsoft has been found guilty
    --Microsoft demonstrated contempt for the judicial system and 
law throughout the proceedings
    --Microsoft, even though found guilty, continues those actions 
which brought the lawsuit in the first place The economic damage:
    --Microsoft has intentionally released malfunctioning software 
(for example, Internet Explorer) that undermines standards, 
automatically generating more defects in business systems of all 
industries, which needlessly increased costs across the board.
    --Microsoft has prevented the development of competing products 
by use of ``secret'' APIs, built in non-interoperability, extensive, 
organized, racketeering-like FUD (aka, lies, deceit, and false 
advertising), and vendor intimidation. None of these are consistent 
with free market principles in any shape or form.
    --Microsoft has devoted far more resources to maintenance of its 
OS monopoly, rather than development on the OS, resulting in two 
decades of significant productivity loss by each and every user of 
DOS and Windows operating systems.
    The current federal resolution:
    --has no economic repercussions whatsoever
    --has none if any of the terms and conditions are ignored
    I am:
    --a Computer Science major (Bachelors)
    --worked for three years at Andersen Consulting
    --worked for one year with IBM
    --worked for one year with Deloitte and Touche
    --worked for one year with a startup (current job)
    --have used DOS, Windows 2.0, 3.1, 95, NT, 98, 2000
    --have used Linux, Sun OS, and IBM AIX
    --skeptical anyone actually read this.



MTC-00015760

From: Adam Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a U.S. Citizen, I have a number of problems with the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft anti-trust case. Among its more 
egregious faults, the settlement allows Microsoft to retaliate 
against any OEM that ships computers with a competing operating 
system. This is one of the anticompetitive tactics that Microsoft 
used to maintain its monopoly in the first place. The fact that it's 
not only allowed by the proposed settlement, but in fact explicitly 
provided for, is a fatal flaw in the settlement. For this reason 
alone (to say nothing of the settlement's many other flaws) the 
proposed settlement should be scrapped.
    Thank you.
    Adam Smith
    ``In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, 
but in practice there is.''



MTC-00015761

From: Kirk Patton x111
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I would like to express my dissapointment with the proposed 
settlement between the US Department of Justice and Microsoft.
    I do not believe the settlement will do anything of substance to 
curb Microsofts illegal behavior. It has no teeth...
    Microsoft maintains its monopoly by controlling the file formats 
of their bussiness applications like MS-Word, MS-Excel... Users are 
constantly forced to upgrade to newer versions so they can read 
documents sent by others who have upgraded.
    They managed to produce several applications that have enough 
attactive features that they won a controlling portion of the 
market. They maintain this control by keeping the file formats 
secret. No one will switch to a competing product unless that 
product can read the files generated by the Microsoft products. 
Since the file formats are kept secrete, this is not possible.
    All file formats must be fully documented and freely available.
    Currently, the biggest threat to Microsofts current monopoly is 
the Free Software movement and the operating system Linux. There is 
no language in the settlement that would compele Microsoft to open 
its protocals and file formats to anyone working on an ``open 
source'' project. To break free of Microsofts control, ``All 
protocals and file formats must be freely available to anyone to use 
for any reason.''
    Thanks,
    Kirk
    Kirk Patton
    Pixim Inc.
    Sr. Systems Administrator
    Phone 650 605-1111
    Cell 650 224-0739
    Fax 650 934-0560
    e-mail [email protected]



MTC-00015762

From: Jim McCusker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.

[[Page 26140]]

    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    James P. McCusker III
    Software Engineer
    13684 Bent Tree Circle
    Centreville, VA 20121



MTC-00015763

From: Govind Salinas
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is an incorrect 
remedy. It does not significantly punish Microsoft and they will 
have plenty of reason to simply ignore the terms seeing that the 
opposition will likely let them get away with it. Some terms in the 
settlement actually make it easier for Microsoft to maintain or 
expand the monopoly position that they have illegally gained and 
exploited. This settlement will end up being bad for consumers and 
competition but good for Microsoft.
    Thank You,
    --Govind Salinas
    Network 1 Financial
    [email protected]
    (210)402-4001



MTC-00015764

From: Lee Adams
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current proposed settlement with Microsoft is weak. You 
should PUNISH wrongdoers and prevent them from doing the same thing 
again.
    Lee Adams
    BOFH
    Synergy Southeast, LLC.
    407.324.3878



MTC-00015765

From: Jonathan Tappan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement must qualify as the most ridiculous 
sellout in legal history.
    1) Microsoft has been found guilty of a crime.
    2) As punishment, Microsoft must agree not to commit the exact 
same crime in the exact same manner for the next five years.
    3) If Microsoft breaks the agreement, the agreement will be 
extended for an additional two years.
    4) The determination of whether Microsoft is abiding by the 
agreement will largely be under the control of Microsoft.
    Jonathan Tappan



MTC-00015766

From: Zeigler, Tim
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    I believe that it is insufficient to prevent future abuses of 
Microsoft's monopoly power. I believe that the company should be 
broken into an applications group and an OS group.
    Timothy W. Zeigler
    Computer Engineer
    Independence MN



MTC-00015767

From: Ammann Drew
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I'' am writing this letter out of concern that the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft case will do little or nothing to stop 
the monopolistic behaviors of this obviously guilty party. To this 
day Microsoft continues to swallow its competitors or force 
competitors out of the market by making the rival product part of 
Windows. The latest example is the inclusion of compact disc burning 
software into the operating system. This is yet another example of 
Microsoft taking away my choice as a consumer. If they are allowed 
to continue to act as a monopolistic predatory company then my 
choices as a consumer will continue to be limited in a negative way. 
I'' am not a lawyer but I can tell that they are going to be allowed 
to continue limiting consumer choices in the marketplace. A 
settlement full of loopholes and unenforceable remedies will be a 
waste of taxpayer money and Microsoft will continue to operate in 
the same manner it has grown accustomed to.
    Regards,
    Drew Ammann
    Lakewood Computer Specialist
    [email protected]
    303-231-5665



MTC-00015768

From: Anderson, Mark R
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the Microsoft settlement is a bad idea that does 
nothing to prevent Microsoft from behaving in a business-as-usual 
manner.
    Mark Anderson
    Arizona
    Chipset Validation Engineer
    Intel Corp.



MTC-00015769

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it necessary to voice my opposition to the proposed 
settlement. As a professional software developer for the Windows and 
Linux platforms I have had the opportunity to see just how much 
illegal bundling has been permitted into Microsoft's Windows 2000 
and particularly Windows XP.
    By experience, I have observed a continual loss of flexibility 
and freedom with each progressive version of Windows. I have begun 
to look more towards Linux as a desired platform because my rights 
as an end user and developer are respected there. Unfortunately, as 
a professional, I must continue to support the Windows environment 
at this time despite my personal dislike for the Anti-competitive 
behavior Microsoft has been exhibiting.
    I urge you to reconsider the issues placed before you and reject 
the settlement for the well stated reasons listed here: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html As the proposal stands, it would do 
nothing to curb the illegal behaviors and could possibly even result 
if a greater monopoly holding.
    Don't allow Microsoft to take away more freedoms and also permit 
more companies to be put out of business through Microsoft's proven 
illegal behaviors.
    -Mark Ericksen
    Systems Designer & Software Engineer



MTC-00015770

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Department of Justice,
    I am writing to you as an american citizen, not as an advocate 
of or opponent to Microsft. I am writing to address the injustice of 
the stipulation III.B.3. Never before in a criminal trial have I 
ever heard of the criminal being able to select the executors of the 
settlement, and then allow the criminal to reselect the executor 
should the U.S. government decide that the original executor was not 
dilligent. I do not understand how Microsoft gets to decide how its 
punishment is carried out, and how the law of the United States of 
America will comply to Microsoft policy.
    I will not comment any further on the settlement of this case, 
though there is still so much that is obviously unfair within. If 
the Department of Justice allows this ruling to proceede, then it 
will be in clear defiance of not only the will of the people, but 
all prescedence set forth by the Justice Department in the past.
    Sincerely
    Christopher Delaney
    Virginia Voter
    Tax Payer
    Reserve Soldier
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015771

From: jeff

[[Page 26141]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: a poor settlement
    Greetings,
    I have read through the microsoft settlement and find it rather 
unsatisfactory. The completely lack of real punishment is appalling. 
Microsoft has clearly mislead and cheated the public, and bullied 
their competitors to the point of financial failure. Yet, the 
``punishment'' seems little more than being told to not do it 
anymore. Incredibly, even the enforcement methods allowed by the 
settlement are paltry and weak. I strongly urge you to review and 
reject the settlement as it now stands.
    Thank you,
    Jeff Beene



MTC-00015772

From: Denis Dimick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry.
    Mircosoft has proven in the past that it will only follow the 
settlement to the bare min. of what is required by law. Remember a 
few years back when we did this the first time? Remember all of the 
loop holes that allowed Mircosoft to continue the same aactivity? 
Well I do, I also remember that it was the DOJ that helped Microsoft 
draft that settlement.. As a voter, and someone who did vote for the 
current administation, I was not happy with the last settlement and 
I'm not very happy with this ``settlement''.
    The court has found that Microsoft broke the law. It is your job 
to act on these findings in the best intrest of the American people. 
This ``settlement'' is not in the best intrest of the American 
people, it's in Microsoft's best intrest.
    Since the events of Sept.11,2001 the current adminstration has 
had the support of the people. If you remember So did George Bush 
Sr. after the Gulf War, YET, He lost this support very quickly for 
makeing one mistake. This very well could be George Bush Jr.'s 
mistake.
    A case for the break up: Microsoft has spent over 3 billion 
dollars on Windows 2000, this product was over 5 years late, and 
shipped with over 65,000 known software defects. Currently Microsoft 
sells all of it's office products tied into it's Windows O/S. If you 
want all of the features, you need to be running Windows. If 
Microsoft was broken-up you would see the following, Microsoft would 
come out with it's own version of Linux. There is nothing stopping 
Microsoft from doing this today, other then trying to recover it's 
investment in Windows. Many people would stand in line for many 
hours, like we saw with Windows 95, to purchase a copy of Microsoft 
Linux.
    This would be a new revenue stream for Microsoft with very 
little cost or investment. Since Linux is under the GPL, Microsoft 
would not be able to modify the source code in such a way as to 
cause the same problems we now are seeing.
    Microsoft would be able to modify it's current applications to 
allow them to run under Linux. This would allow them to sell the 
same applications, at full price, to Linux users. In less then 10 
years the two companies would be bigger then just the one, and the 
consumers would have a real choice.
    So you now have two companies that are able to sell products and 
continue to compete. AOL/Time Warner have just brought suit against 
Microsoft based on the current findings of the court. If the DOJ 
does not act properly on those finding and if AOL/Time Warner ends 
up being the one to get action based on thoses findings, how do you 
think thats going to look to the American people?
    The DOJ has continued to ``drop the ball'' on many issues. We 
could blame this on many things, past adminstrations, poor 
leadership etc. However, If members of the DOJ really felt that 
things where going the wrong way, I think the DOJ would see many of 
it's staff leaving. Since the American people are not seeing this, 
One can only assume that the DOJ and it's staff dont see anything 
wrong with it's actions.
    Maybe it's time change the way things are run at the DOJ? Maybe 
it's time to stop the``free-ride'' George Bush Jr. has had. The days 
of being able to slip one thru, are over with the Internet, news 
travels too fast. What worked back in the late 80's and early 90's 
no longer works. If you try to slip this one thru, it will backfire.
    Thank you,
    Denis Dimick
    968 Alamo Road
    Los Alamos, NM 87544
    505-661-8650--Home
    505-667-8618--Work



MTC-00015773

From: Carlos Benjamin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the proposed settlement with Microsoft:
    As a computer professional I am concerned that Microsoft will 
continue to use anti-competetive tactics to stifle genuine 
innovation in the computer software arena. Their continued 
leveraging of their Operating System Monopoly on the Intel (and AMD) 
platform to block competing software from the channel is wrong.
    If the DOJ does not force Microsoft's hand in this matter, there 
will be no profit incentive for creating new applications, Microsoft 
will win in the marketplace by default and the consumers will be 
hurt by ever-decreasing options.
    An additional argument could be made that a continued Microsoft 
monopoly will create a security threat to the computing 
infrastructure that runs the Internet and much of American business. 
All of the crippling computer virus and worm attacks over the past 
couple of years have been against Microsoft products. While part of 
this can be attributed to the size of Microsoft's installed base 
making for a large target, much of it must lay at the door of 
Microsoft and their continual creation of exploitable 
vulnerabilities in their software products. This is a problem not 
just for users of Microsoft products, but creates problems for those 
of us running more secure systems. The Code Red worm attacks and 
compromises Microsoft IIS servers but affects other servers by 
diminishing bandwidth, clogging up mail servers with emails trying 
to replicate itself and by ``pestering'' servers with port scans and 
attempts to breach security measures.
    Having watched while too many companies have created innovative 
software applications, competed successfully against inferior 
Microsoft products that followed and were eventually squashed by 
Microsoft's ability to brow-beat the OEM's and retailers by 
leveraging their monopoly position in the OS market, I was happy to 
see the DOJ take on this monolithic giant on the behalf of 
consumers. Genuine innovation flourishes in a competetive 
environment.
    Microsoft's continued abuses have created a chilling effect in 
the marketplace that stops innovators by removing the incentives to 
create something new. It's like the kid on the beach who stops 
building sand castles because he knows the bully will come along 
before he can finish and kick it to pieces.
    I urge you to reconsider this settlement and break the 
stranglehold Microsoft has placed on the industry.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Benjamin, Jr.
    Carlos Benjamin, Jr.
    Computer Systems/Network Admin.
    Central Arizona Project
    23636 North Seventh Street
    Phoenix, AZ 85024
    Voice 623-869-2364
    Fax 623-869-2154



MTC-00015774

From: Darrell Gallion
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement
    Rochester NY
    Software Eng.
    First Consulting
    Darrell Gallion
    I would like to co-sign Dan Kegel's open letter. http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html That Microsoft can be convicted and 
get away with controlling the Software world, is demoralizing. In 
many cases their product is inferior, but their strong arm tactics 
are superior.
    They must increase profits to satisfy stock holders. If they had 
competition this would be limited. With out competition what upper 
limit is there to their demands and power?
    Mr. Gates is the monopoly of the desktop with no place left to 
grow. He must use his immense power to take over other industries.
    --Darrell Gallion
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015775

From: Jason S.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: My Opinion
    To whom it may concern,
    I would like to make my voice heard in the Microsoft Antitrust 
case. I have been reading through many articles and essays 
concerning the proposed solution to the problems that Microsoft has 
been creating for an entire industry, and I am simply not impressed.

[[Page 26142]]

    The proposed settlement is not sufficient to change the 
stranglehold Microsoft has in all of the markets it competes in 
(Operating Systems, Office software, Media formats, etc.). If you do 
not halt this now, it will only get worse for all of us.
    Thank you for your time,
    Jason Staph
    Internet Administrator



MTC-00015776

From: Daniel Goscha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is a very bad 
idea. Why do I believe this? It is clear that Microsoft commands a 
huge share of the market, and if they are allowed to continue on 
under the terms of the settlement, they will continue to use their 
market dominance to crush (or buy out) any competitive companies 
that threaten their bottom line. Competition is the American way -- 
it is what allows we Americans to have the right to choose. If a 
company, such as Microsoft, is allowed to continue to use its 
unfettered force to eliminate consumer choice, then it will truly be 
a dark day for America. I believe the proposed Microsoft settlement 
will allow Microsoft to carry on such anti-competitive practices.
    I will not re-outline the details of how the proposed Judgment 
falls short as they are covered very thoroughly in a document by Dan 
Kegel entitled, ``On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft'', which can be found at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
    Best regards,
    Daniel Goscha
    Research Programmer
    University of Illinois / NCSA



MTC-00015777

From: Descendent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing to express my discontent with the current Microsoft 
Antitrust settlement. The initial case found Microsoft guilty of 
predatory practises and to be a monopoly, however the punishment was 
diluted to no more than a slap on the wrist. It has been proven that 
Microsoft used its Operating System market share and influence to 
force out competitors in the internet browser market, and good 
arguments can be made that they have done the same in office/
business applications.
    The only way to ensure these practises are not continued is to 
break up the company into operating system and application daughter 
companies, with oversight to ensure special treatment is not given 
to ex-MS companies over their competitors in each market. Barring 
the dismantling of the illegal monopoly, it is imperrative that the 
operating system APIs become open to all so that competitors in the 
application markets will be on a level playing field with the 
Microsoft applications.
    Information is power, and third party developers have been 
specifically kept from full disclosure, thus at a great 
disadvantage. The monopoly of Microsoft must be ended.
    Thank you for your time,
    Sincerely,
    Barrett Dillow



MTC-00015778

From: Arthur Knoll
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I do not believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of its competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    I feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I do not feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    The current proposed settlement is unacceptable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Arthur Knoll
    6105 Pritchard West
    Virginia Tech
    Blacksburg, VA 24060-0024



MTC-00015779

From: Michael Engelby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern, The settlement does not inflict enough 
reparations to correct in principle the prior monopolistic actions 
of Microsoft. It does nothing to curtail future business actions. 
Microsoft will always act as it has in the past, with ruthless 
business tactics that in the end--are bad for US (and world) 
economy.
    Please consider this as a vote against the current settlement as 
it stands now.
    Michael E. Engelby
    Eden Prairie, MN
    (952) 484-0799



MTC-00015780

From: Robert J Brenneman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea because of the 
reasons outlined in Dan Kegel's open letter. http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html
    Jay Brenneman
    **The opinion expressed here is my own, and may not reflect the 
opinion of my employer.**



MTC-00015781

From: Robert Hyland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry. Some serious shortcomings relate to:
    1) Middleware.--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:

[[Page 26143]]

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,
    Rob Hyland
    87 Summer St
    Stoneham, MA 02180
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015782

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  11:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. It neither alleviates the 
illegal advantage already obtained by Microsoft nor does it prevent 
the continuing attempts to extend the Microsoft monopoly into online 
services, personal digital recorders, cable television and other 
areas. It allows technological progress to continue to be impeded by 
entrenched corporate interests at the expense of consumers.
    The company's behavior has not changed and it continues to hold 
back the pace of innovation in the computer industry. I am a 20+ 
year veteran of that industry and regard the proposed settlement as 
the most cynical sort of obfuscation and corruption.
    Please do not allow this abuse to continue.
    Carl Beaudry
    629 River Bend Road
    Fort Washington, MD 20744



MTC-00015783

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge KK:
    Please undo the potential damage to our entire industry inherent 
in the Justice Dept's proposed settlement with MS. It is an outrage 
to see MS get off with little more than a slap on the wrist?and it 
is a very dangerous precendent for our country.
    We are counting on you to do the right thing.
    N Biliunas
    320 Sweet Creek
    Richmond, VA
    23233



MTC-00015784

From: Joe P.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:03am
Subject: [Fwd: Microsoft Settlement]
    I agree with what my friend has said. I want to further add that 
any part of the settlement that involves the public education system 
should be severely restricted. Microsoft should not be allowed to 
create a new monopoly in the educational software markets as a 
result of this settlement. The point of the settlement is to hinder 
their current monopoly.
    Any settlement involving public education should therefore be 
restricted to Microsoft's payment of actual money to qualifying 
educational institutions. There should be no donation of hardware or 
software, and the money should be given without restrictions, 
consultation, or even suggestions to the public education bodies 
involved. The schools should be free to use the money in whatever 
way they choose--for example, increasing teachers'' salaries, hiring 
additional teachers, building new facilities, or purchasing whatever 
computer hardware and software the schools prefer.
    Thank you for your patient consideration,
    Joseph Porter
    Software Engineer
    Note: My views do not constitute the views of my employer, nor 
any of its affiliates.
    -----Forwarded Message-----
    From: Greg Willden [email protected]>
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Date: 23  Jan 2002 08:18:47 -0600
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft Settlement under the 
statutes of the Tunney Act.
    I think that the settlement is very poor and does not properly 
address the real issues. There are numerous loopholes in the 
proposed settlement that will allow Microsoft, who has a history of 
unethical and illegal actions, to transform this penalty into an 
advantage for them. In order to restore proper competition I think 
it necessary for Microsoft to publish the file formats of all their 
Microsoft Office files. The .doc file format is widely used. If the 
format were made available then other office productivity suites 
like WordPerfect,
    StarOffice, Abiword and OpenOffice could effectively compete 
with them. Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) must be allowed 
to sell a computer that can boot up into more than one Operating 
System. This has been attempted in the past but has been quashed by 
Microsoft's legal team. It is suspected that Microsoft is forcing 
the OEMs into single OS bootloader licenses that disallow this 
behavior.
    These are only a few of the things that Microsoft has done to 
stifle competition and innovation. For all of Microsoft's talk about 
being able to innovate. They are doing more to hurt it than they are 
to help it.
    The settlement also needs to have some real teeth. The 
`independent' auditors/monitors of Microsoft's behavior need to have 
complete independence and freedom to discuss any of their findings 
with the public and press. Unless they are allowed to do this their 
voices will be too easily silenced.
    Microsoft should also have major fines imposed upon it for 
future violations of the settlement. Fines substantial enough that 
it will think twice before violating the public trust. And the 
monies collected from these fines should go to their competitors. I 
would recommend projects related to the GNU/Linux Operating System. 
Microsoft has openly acknowledged that Linux is a real competitor. 
What better way to ensure compliance than to force Microsoft to 
donate substantial funds to their competitors.
    Microsoft has been shown to practice illegal predatory behavior. 
Do not cave in to them and give them a settlement with so many 
loopholes. They will exploit it to the detriment of all.
    Greg Willden
    San Antonio, Texas
    Software Engineer



MTC-00015785

From: Brian Reichert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft case 
isn't sufficient. A stronger remedy should be considered.
    Brian Reichert



MTC-00015786

From: Dennett, Pete
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement has many problems.

[[Page 26144]]

    I urge you to rethink it, and develop something that more 
adequately addresses many of the primary concerns that consumers 
have with Microsoft.
    Pete Dennett
    Tacoma, WA



MTC-00015787

From: James Hammond
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Concerning the current United States v. Microsoft antitrust 
case: I have read over the Stipulation and Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement of 11/06/2001, and am NOT in favor of it in its current 
state. The settlement does not, in any way, penalize Microsoft for 
its past infringements of the law. For many years, OEMs have been 
under control of this corporation, and simply ``formalizing'' this 
law in a document is not enough. Microsoft has been declared guilty 
of past wrongs, and must now be held accountable in some measure. 
The current proposed settlement is unacceptable.
    Thank you,
    John H. Hammond
    Shawnee, OK



MTC-00015788

From: David Wiley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    I am writing to express my deep concern that the proposed final 
judgment in the US vs Microsoft case is completely unacceptable. 
While I personally believe each of the individual remedies needs 
improvement (see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html for 
example), I have a much greater overarching concern.
    When dealing with Microsoft the court has shown a tendency to 
overlook conduct which at the time of trial appears to then be 
irrelevant. With the speed at which the technology sector 
progresses, Microsoft can never be held accountable via legal 
proceedings when this pattern is followed. By the time the case 
finally makes it to court, the competition is dead and gone, or the 
point is now moot for some other reason, and Microsoft walks away 
with not even a wrist slap. Unless substantive changes are put in 
place, Microsoft is sure to continue having its way in the market, 
dragging its feet to court, and getting away with illegal acts year 
after year. I truly believe that this is not an overstatement, but 
the very pattern of behavior we will continue to see.
    Please do not let the current economic climate dissuade you from 
doing the right thing. Legal restrictions on practice will not 
prevent Microsoft from acting illegally again. Only drastic measures 
which have the effect of structurally, physically, preventing 
illegal behavior have a chance of preventing further illegal 
behavior on Microsoft's part. Any lesser remedy is nothing short of 
government approval to Microsoft to continue acting illegally. I 
would be happy to discuss my opinion with you further, at your 
leisure.
    Your faithful servant,
    David Wiley, Ph.D.
    Assistant Professor of Instructional Technology
    Utah State University
    UMC 2830
    Logan, Utah 84322-2830
    [email protected]
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015789

From: Michael Gates
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is simply ineffective, since it uses overly-
restrictive definitions of terms such as ``Windows OS'', ``API'', 
and the like. These definitions allow Microsoft to completely escape 
from the terms of the settlement simply by changing the names of its 
products, and Microsoft comes up with a new name for every version 
of Windows anyway.
    Michael Falcon-Gates



MTC-00015790

From: Tom Brown
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Many businesses have ceased 
to exist because of Microsoft's strong-arm business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015791

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Please Judge;
    Do the right thing by our country and our world'send the PFJ 
back to the Dept of Justice to be fixed!!
    It is not a fair and equitable settlement?it is in fact 
completely one-sided. How can they let Microsoft essentially police 
itself?? That flies in the face of all of the company's history!!
    Please do the right thing.
    Bev Mozzerolli
    247 Wilkins St
    Manchester NH
    03102



MTC-00015792

From: Edward Chowdhury
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I think that the proposed settlement between the Microsoft and 
the Department of Justice is a truly bad idea. It will do nothing to 
restore competition and will in effect be a reward for Microsoft's 
demonstrably anti-competitive behaviour.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Edward Chowdhury



MTC-00015793

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft Settlement is a bad idea. Microsoft has 
been convicted of antitrust behavior. It has already been 
established that they broke the law. They were supposed to be better 
corporate citizens after the 1995 settlement, but they continued 
their anti-competitive actions.
    Any fair resolution to this case must address at least these 
points:
    * Oversight to make sure that they don't continue. This 
oversight must really be able to stop bad behavior.
    * Microsoft should publish ALL Application Programming 
Interfaces to all of its products. This includes standard API calls, 
file formats and network protocols. And this means ALL API calls, 
file formats and network protocols. As a programmer I've been 
blocked by undocumented API features that allow Microsoft's software 
to do things that I couldn't simply because they wouldn't tell 
anyone how to do certain things. Basically, all interfaces must be 
published. They must be available to everyone on a public website, 
or on a CD for a nominal fee (maximum $50)
    * Microsoft must publicly publish all APIs 3 months before they 
release any product that uses those APIs. This includes alpha or 
beta software. If the APIs change then they must publish those 
changes and can not release any version of the software that uses 
those changes for 3 months. All API documentation must clearly 
indicate what the changes were.
    * Open Source software developers must not be blocked. Open 
source software is available for free, usually under the GNU General 
Public License. Open source projects and programmers must have 
access to APIs to be able to create competing products. Information 
must not be denied to such projects simply because the projects do 
not charge a fee. These are only my top issues. There are many more 
that must be included to reach a fair settlement for something of 
the magnitude of Microsoft's crimes.
    Thank you.
    Chris Riley
    2104 Jersey Ave
    Scotch Plains, NJ 07076



MTC-00015794

From: Ron Standage

[[Page 26145]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    In regards to the proposed settlement, I am opposed to it 
because it fails to redress past misbehavior by Microsoft.
    To be fair, all APIs into the operating system and file formats 
for any applications with a monopoly market position such as 
Microsoft Office components, must be made open to all requestors and 
made available on the WWW with any changes announced in detail at 
least six months prior to implementation or delivery into the 
marketplace.
    Further, all applications, such as browsers, must be separated 
from the operating system and able to be removed, or replaced by a 
competing product, without hindering the operation of the underlying 
OS.
    Finally, consumers who purchase a computer with any Microsoft 
operating system preinstalled must be able to remove the operating 
system and receive a refund of that portion of the purchase cost 
attributable to the expense of the OS.
    Thank you for receiving my comments.
    Ron Standage
    2058 E. Winchester Way
    Chandler, AZ 85249
    [email protected]



MTC-00015795

From: Evil E
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has every right to include in ``their products'' their 
own products! christ who can tell a company not to sell or give away 
anything. sounds like marx and lenin are alive and well in your town 
buddy. any of us,big or small rich or poor can give away or sell 
cheaper anything, at our discretion. look what you retards did with 
at-t now everyone with a phone sufferes becuase the govmt is afraid 
of big comanies with the wearwithall to oppose their marxist 
pilcy.soon computer technology becuase of you will cost so much it 
will be out of the reach of ordinary folks. sorta like 50 dollar 
ohone bills that used to be 10 dollars.wow that competition huh. 
GROW A BRAIN!!!!!!!! microsoft is the net and we dont mind. without 
them technology will grind to a halt(we can heard sheep is that what 
you want commrade) if they pull their patents, and just stop(and 
they can) you will have to steal their ideas and force someone to 
pick up where they left off that is treason and trechery! they have 
the ball let em run with it! go away.
    God help us this shoulnt even be happening. let microsoft pave 
the way! get the hell out of our lives we dont want you here.we 
really ,really dont want you here.
    E.E



MTC-00015796

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From what I have read in the press concerning the proposed 
settlement, it does not force Microsoft to abandon any of the 
practices that caused the lawsuit to be applied. Does the three 
person ``watchdog council'' have any enforcement powers? Does anyone 
else? I am not aware that Microsoft has shown any change of policy, 
which appears to be ``we want to control every aspect of computers 
and their use'', and I don't think the proposed settlement has any 
power to force them to change.
    Kevin Sisson



MTC-00015797

From: Troy Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement regarding the Microsoft 
will fail to break Microsoft's monopoly. I have co-signed Dan 
Kegel's comments as to why I feel this way.
    Thank You,
    Troy Smith



MTC-00015798

From: Michael Patrick Kenny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Please Break Them Up
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a concerned citizen and computer user, I found the verdict in 
the Microsoft anti-trust trial reprehensibly one-sided and a 
disservice to the Cause of Justice in America.
    I urge you to reconsider the verdict. MS having control of the 
operating system already gives them a monopoly on the desktop. 
Allowing them to leverage that monopoly to give them unfair 
advantage in each and every (previously) competitive market on the 
desktop really stifles innovation, no matter what Bill Gates and 
Steve Ballmer say.
    I actually believe that, in your zeal to protect and preserve 
entrenched businesses in America you are killing the pioneer spirit 
of entrepreneureal endeavor, and so the decision to kowtow and cave 
completely to Judge Penfield's decision, no matter how emotional he 
became (I believe he was sorely tested) can only be construed as 
political and Machievellian, in these jaded times.
    A breakup of the company is the only viable solution. C'mon, 
Justice Department, you had the courage to do it in the early 
1900's, why can you not see the light now? Please reconsider your 
terrible and biased decision in the interests of your true 
consitiuency, the American people.
    Thank You,
    Michael Patrick Kenny and family



MTC-00015799

From: Bradley Hawkins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is not in the best interest of the 
public. The three points below would address my concerns with the 
settlement and Microsoft's monopolist practices:
    Opening the Windows API falls short of leveling the field; a 
just settlement would require that Microsoft's file formats be made 
public.
    Computer users who wish to employ a non-Microsoft operating 
system nevertheless now must pay for Microsoft software when buying 
a new computer. Any remedy seeking to prevent an illegal extension 
of Microsoft's monopoly must prohibit preload agreements, placing 
Microsoft products as extra-cost options, so that the user who does 
not wish to purchase Microsoft products is not forced to do so.
    To encourage competition, a just settlement would enjoin 
Microsoft from selling its software to anyone at a lower price than 
it sells it to anyone else. 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.
    Bradley Hawkins
    [email protected]



MTC-00015800

From: The Doctor What
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed final judgement for Microsoft. It doesn't 
address enough of the problems created by Microsoft. The scope of 
the pfj does very little, and it would seem that Microsoft would 
happily ignore it, as it has with past judgements.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html



MTC-00015801

From: Glen Henshaw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Recent events in the software world have shown that one 
very effective way to encourage competition is to ``open up'' an 
operating system's API (application programmer's interface) so that 
other developers can create new operating systems which are 
compatible with the old one. This is the easiest way to give users a 
choice of systems, since they are not required to change the 
applications they already use. There are several such projects 
already in existence: Wine and LindowsOS are among them. The 
developers of these products have been extremely hampered by the 
closed nature of the Windows operating system. Forcing Microsoft to 
publish their complete API would go a long way in encouraging third 
party Winodws-compatible products, and is one of the only effective 
ways to mitigate Microsoft's monopoly. This requirement is not part 
of the current settlement.
    The same goes for file formats. It is impossible to produce a 
product that competes effectivelt with Microsoft Excel without the 
ability to open Microsoft Excel files--and Microsoft does not 
document the format of Excel files (or Word files or Access files... 
the list goes on). Language requiring public documentation of these 
files should be present in the settlement. Unfortunately, this is 
also not a requirement of the current settlement. Another major 
problem with the settlement is the lack of a strong enforcement

[[Page 26146]]

mechanism. Microsoft has shown that it is willing to bend--or 
break--the rules of agreements in the past if it thinks doing so is 
to its advantage.
    This is a company without scruples. A special master must be in 
place to monitor compiance and to assist the courts in settling 
disputes. Finally, Microsoft was found guilty of predatory practices 
against their competitors. They should be required to pay damages to 
those competitors. Such a requirement is not part of the current 
settlement. I urge you to reject the current settlement. This is the 
best chance to rein in Microsoft's abusive practices. The current 
settlement will not do that.
    Sincerely,
    Glen Henshaw
    Glen [email protected]
    Space Systems Lab
    http://www.ssl.umd.edu
    University of Maryland(301) 405-7353



MTC-00015802

From: Embery, Nathan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I believe it to be sufficiently proven that Microsoft has broken 
the law. I also believe that no stretch of the imagination is 
required to believe that Microsoft will break the same laws again. 
It would be a most egregious mistake to simply dismiss this fact.
    I assure you that Microsoft's anticipative, monopolist practices 
will only continue. This is already evidenced by the recent pricing 
initiative taken by Microsoft. Apparently they are moving to a model 
where they can force upgrades at their discretion. This would force 
nearly *every* business in the *world* to pay several hundred to 
several million dollars to Microsoft every two years. Actually, at 
any time MS chooses. This would surely never happen if there were at 
least one alternative software company. This is elementary 
economics. Monopolies are *not* good.
    The problem is: there is no alternative. No small startup, not 
even a company like Sun Microsystems, can compete. Because of the 
propriety file formats MS employs, once a company uses MS Office, 
they are forced to stay with, or recreate every document they have. 
That alone, will keep MS in business for quite some time. This is 
only one example. The list goes on and on. Take .NET, the CIFS 
protocol, the Kerberos protocol, OEM licensing restrictions, non 
disclosure of ``hidden'' API's.
    I urge you, as a taxpaying citizen, to look at this matter very 
closely. Any reasonable person can see the illegality of these 
actions. A punishment fitting the crime is absolutely required. 
Please don't give anyone the impression you were bought off. I 
assure you, anything less than harsh, will be viewed in exactly this 
way. thank you for your time,
    Nathan Embery
    CrownCastle IT
    office (724)-416-2207



MTC-00015803

From: Todd Hanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015804

From: William Stewart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software specialist providing computer support to law 
firms in the Charleston, SC area. Every day I have to deal with 
issues of compatibility, security, and the replacement of superior 
software products with inferior Microsoft products whose pernicious 
spread has been supported by that company's long history of anti-
competitive conduct. Microsoft's actions have caused considerable 
harm both to the progress of the computer industry as a whole, and 
to the American economy. They have driven competitors with superior 
products out of the market, have purposely built incompatibilities 
into their products to lock out competition, with no regard to 
useability, and have repeatedly and unashamedly lied to their 
customers, the industry, and the American government. The current 
remedies under consideration amount to a slap on the wrist that 
Microsoft will write off as a cost of doing business. They will in 
no way cause the corporation to alter their behavior (except, 
perhaps, to encourage them to become more bold in their actions 
since they will know no fear of reprisals), and will in no 
substantial way remedy the damage that Microsoft's actions have 
done.
    With sincere concern, I remain,
    William James Stewart
    843-810-3484 CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015805

From: Scott
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello, I read these points on the internet and agree these need 
to be applied to Microsoft.

PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct

    1. Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs who support 
competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), or Outlook 
Express (OE).
    2. Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges the 
top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
    3. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders.
    4. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer 
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing 
web browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly 
to Windows.
    5. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network 
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems 
to connect to Windows servers.
    6. Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or OE.
    7. (Roughly same as F above.)
    8. Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, 
WMP, WM, and OE, and let them designate competing products to be 
used instead.
    9. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    10. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to 
do with security or copy protection.

PFJ Section VI: Definitions

    1. ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined as 
only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.
    2. ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as Internet 
Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), 
Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    3. ``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined as Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional.
    I also think they need to openly publish complete specifications 
for their Office document formats to allow others to import/export 
these proprietary formats.
    -- Scott Edlund



MTC-00015806

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Danial M. Howard
    IT Programmer/Analyst Associate
    Idaho State University
    Pocatello, Idaho



MTC-00015807

From: Jeremy Cothran
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the current settlement is a bad one because it does 
nothing to truly discourage Microsoft's monopolistic behavior.



MTC-00015808

From: David Crotty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    I wish to express my sentiments against the proposed Microsoft/
DOJ settlement. I feel it does not address the issues of the case, 
will cause no substantial changes in the company's behavior, and 
provides no means for enforcement.
    Shape is always the result of an inquisition process of matter. 
Freedom is shapeless. Morphology, a word invented by Goethe, has 
infinite consequences.''
    Salvador Dali



MTC-00015809

From: Christian H(00F6)ltje
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am

[[Page 26147]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the Proposed Final Jugdement as being much too lenient.



MTC-00015810

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my disappointment with the proposed 
settlement. It doesn't seem to go far enough. There is no 
fundamental change happening as a result of this settlement. For all 
intents and purposes it would seem that Microsoft can continue to do 
business the same way it always has. It was apparent from the trial 
that the past behavior in regards to past court mandated orders did 
not change. The people at Microsoft were smart enough about their 
product to simply program a way around any restrictions. It was 
business as usual. I am a long time Microsoft product systems 
administrator. I like there products and I have built a career 
around what the have to offer. I am disturbed however by the 
complete focus of the management at Microsoft on getting that last 
10%. It is a given they own 90% of the market, mostly due to 
products that fit a particular area, not because of exceptionally 
better products. You would think that a company that has achieved 
this kind of dominance would be interested in building a better 
product with the large resources they have., This does not appear to 
be the case. Their primary focus is driving out competition and 
getting the last 10% they don't have. Because of their success there 
business is forced strategy wise to invest and diversify, hence the 
drive to fill out the remaining uses of there core products, OS and 
Applications. They are moving into all of the other areas like music 
players, computer maintenance software like defragment utilities and 
such. I would not be surprised to hear they are coming out with 
their own antiviral software.
    It would seem the drive and ambition that got them where they 
are is still there. Unfortunately when you are as large as they are 
drive and ambition quickly become threats and coercion to companies 
that are infinitely smaller. At some point a company must mature and 
shift gears in how it runs its business and relates to the companies 
around it. Microsoft hasn't reached this type of maturity yet. They 
have succeeded in alienating almost everyone in this business. It is 
my hope that the antitrust case will force this maturity upon them. 
Sometimes you have to make people change for there own good. Its 
called intervention in the substance abuse circles.
    Scott Brown
    Systems Admin



MTC-00015811

From: Bob Cantwell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 23, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to you to let you know that I endorse the Microsoft 
antitrust settlement agreement. The industry can only benefit from a 
quick resolution to this case. It is in the best interest of the 
public that Microsoft and the technology industry are allowed to get 
back to business as soon as possible.
    I know and understand the terms of the settlement agreement to 
be fair, and I would state that they go beyond what should be 
expected of Microsoft. I am especially concerned about the proposed 
remedies that the nine ``hold out'' states are looking for. The line 
has to be drawn somewhere with respect to IP rights, innovation and 
competition.
    The restrictions Microsoft has agreed to will ensure there will 
be fair competition among the various software companies. In the 
interest of resolving this suit, Microsoft has agreed not to 
exercise its intellectual property rights; to make its code 
available to its competitors; and to not retaliate in any way 
against those who promote software that competes with Windows.
    Microsoft's business practices will dramatically change, with 
the approval of this agreement. The playing field will be leveled to 
the point of favoring Microsoft's competitors, and they will be 
given greater opportunity to compete with Microsoft's Windows 
operating system. Innovation will be negatively impacted if the 
lawsuit is allowed to continue. The settlement agreement will allow 
the industry to continue growing in an unfettered, competitive 
market place that moves too quickly for any legal proceeding. I know 
there will be no silver bullet in these matters, but with diligence 
and fairness, the technology industry, specifically the PC industry 
should be allowed to help the economy prosper through hard work, 
determination, healthy (tough) competition and the synergy's that 
standards provide. Perhaps the government should be more involved in 
the internet standards bodies, where no one knows what decisions are 
being made that will greatly impact the direction of the Internet 
and related business. Lastly, I always hear about consumer choice 
and how important it is, but as a consumer, I do not want to see the 
other extreme, where I have to choose every little component of my 
Computer. People who purchase large ticket items want as much out of 
the box as possible, so in the spirit of ``Equal Access'' vis a vis 
AT&T divestiture, I would think that including competitive software 
(Real Player, AOL client, etc.) within Windows shipped from the 
hardware manufacturers is a fair remedy, compared to breaking up 
Windows into multiple components and creating confusion and 
discordance in the industry.
    Many thanks for taking the time to read my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Cantwell, Jr.
    7 Amanda Lane
    West Chester, PA 19380
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum (PA)



MTC-00015812

From: chad phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: `Microsoft Settlement'
    Hello,
    I am writing to comment on the tentative settlement of the 
United States vs. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit. I believe the 
settlement in its current form will do little to remove or even slow 
down Microsoft's current monopoly over the software market. For 
years I have seen software from non-Microsoft companies be renedered 
useless by Microsoft ``upgrades''. Attempts to integrate non-
Microsoft software with Windows and other Microsoft products are 
usually thwarted by Microsoft using its monopoly power.
    In order to allow the software industry to thrive, I humbly ask 
that you reach a settlement that will stop Microsoft from using its 
monopoly power to kill any and all competitors.
    Sincerely
    Chad Phillips



MTC-00015813

From: John Burroway
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read the proposed settlement, and do not consider it fair 
or equitable. It appears to be simple appeasement towards Microsoft, 
as well as acceptance and formalization of their unethical and 
monopolistic practices that have driven so many competitors out of 
the marketplace. Microsoft has been found guilty, and they still 
their behavior has not changed. They have attempted to sway states'' 
attorneys general with letters apparently sent by the deceased. It 
has even been reported that they are trying to tilt the comments 
submitted during this period in their favor. They have demonstrated 
their lack of moral fortitude time and time again, and this 
settlement will allow them to walk away with everything they have 
ever wanted. Please consider this a vote against the current 
settlement and a vote to seek a new settlement more favorable to 
freedom and fair competition.
    John Burroway
    Columbus, Ohio



MTC-00015814

From: Whitworth, Shane
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    The Microsoft settlement as stands is horrific.
    In fact, it is a very good example of what is wrong when 
companies are allowed to buy out the government.
    It is a slap in the face to the American people. I personally 
feel sold out by the DOJ for even considering this.
    Anyone who looks at this can tell the difference the Bush 
administration has had in this case.
    SOLD OUT.
    I fully agree with the information in the following link.
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Tommy Shane Whitworth
    US CITIZEN

[[Page 26148]]

    1091 Valley Forge Rd.
    Clover, SC 29710
    803-831-2283



MTC-00015815

From: Patrick McDonald
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I just want to comment that I think the proposed settlement in 
the Microsoft Anti-trust trial is highly unjust and deserves further 
review.
    Patrick McDonald



MTC-00015816

From: Jason R
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is bad.



MTC-00015817

From: Catherine, Janis
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: NO on Microsoft Settlement
    I vote NO! to the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    I don't believe that the current proposal provides adequate 
reparations to those injured by Microsoft's anti-competitive 
behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of small companies have ceased 
to exist over the decades because of Microsoft's business practices. 
Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become a 
government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at 40%). This must be true for all Microsoft product 
lines, before regulation is lifted.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The market must 
be able to return to a state of competition.
    Imagine the damage to the United States if Microsoft were to 
fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are greater than 
merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00015818

From: andaru
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I am a US citizen, and I am opposed to the proposed settlement 
of the DoJ's case against Microsoft.
    Although Microsoft has been found guilty of breaking the law, 
there is nothing punative in the settlement. Microsoft must be 
punished for its illegal activities, and greatly discouraged from 
engaging in illegal activities in the future.
    Because of this, I must urge you to reject the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft, and pursue more aggressive means to 
ensure justice for the computer-using population.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew T. Phillips
    Andrew T. Phillips
    Software Engineer
    Email: [email protected]
    Voice: (415) 695-7640
    Fax: (415) 282-5318



MTC-00015819

From: Byron Norris
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general. While the Court's desire that a 
settlement be reached is well-intentioned, it is wrong to reach an 
unjust settlement just for settlement's sake. A wrong that is not 
corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Byron Norris
    Tulsa, Oklahoma



MTC-00015820

From: Burt Schmitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir:
    I am sending earlier this message in re support of the Netscape 
suit against predatory Microsoft and Bill Gates business practices.
    Burt Schmitz
    7479 Bollinger Road
    Cupertino, CA 95014-4332
    11 November 1999
    408-252-4724
    Letters to the Editor:
    In rebuttal to Luther Gipson's attack (Merc. News, 11 November) 
on Judge Penfield Jackson's defense of me from the predations of 
Microsoft, let me point out it isn't Bill Gates or anyone else's 
wealth; it is the computer-destructive content of Microsoft's ill 
conceived, poorly-developed, untested foisting of destructive junk 
software on we computer users. I am not alone; the derisive parodies 
that float around the E-mail world ridiculing the Microsoft 
technology and destructive non-performance are legion.
    One year and six months ago [June 1998], after not allowing the 
outside world into my computer for years, I surrendered. On the 
advice of a friend, I went Microsoft and his Explorer. Within two 
weeks my comuter internal software had been destroyed by continuous 
destructive failures. I threw him off my system ... and will not let 
anything tagged Microsoft or Bill Gates back near my computer ... if 
I have to defend myself at the door with a shotgun!
    Within a month, my friend's recommendation proved totally 
destructive of HIS computer ... the sequence of disasters eventually 
resulting in physical destruction of his hard drive. I have a friend 
in Alburquerque whose computer is continuously down because her 
system is one of Bill Gates'' ersatz-wonderkind; she is not 
computer-literate, and is continuously being bombed by the Microsoft 
junk. She doesn't know where to turn; her user group props her up 
weekly.
    An analogy; Bill Gates has, whenever competition has shown a 
worthwhile innovation, copied it, rushed to market ahead of testing 
and debugging, much like an auto manufaturer copying and rushing an 
ill-conceived auto design out to the public before a small town 
garage can test, perfect, and market its superior innovation.
    My son works in a large institution where they once had two 
computer systems; one Microsoft and one Apple. The people forced to 
use the Microsoft system hated it, the users of the Apple system 
loved it ... and it was never down. Bill Gates predatory business 
practices resulted in elimination of the Apple system. Judge 
Jackson's decision was relatively mild. Nineteen governors can't be 
wrong.
    Nuff said?
    Burt Schmitz
    Cupertino



MTC-00015821

From: mwilkers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement is garbage. Do not make the same mistake 
again and allow Microsoft to escape with barely a hand slap. They 
have been found guilty of monopolistic business practices and it is 
imperative to the health and future of this nation's computer 
industry that they be duly punished. A real punishment, not 
something as laughable as the ``we'll donate a bunch of computers to 
schools so we can cut into one of our competitor's market shares'. 
As Americans we expect equal treatment before the law and find it 
appalling when large companies escape/buy their way out of any real 
punishment. Hold Microsoft accountable for its crime.
    Michael
    Michael C. Wilkerson
    Software Developer
    Command Technologies, Inc.
    (210) 520-7973 x 35



MTC-00015822

From: Scrivner, Steve (091)MMI/BOU(093)

[[Page 26149]]

To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea, and I hope that you will 
renegotiate it without so many loopholes.



MTC-00015823

From: William Sattler
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I cannot support the current proposed settlement. It has a few 
large loophole, and a some smaller ones that will allow Microsoft to 
continue to abuse its monopoly on personal computer operating 
systems. Specifically my main complaint is of III.J.1 which will 
give Microsoft the loophole they need. In fact they have already 
started to make use of this. Only as recently as January 16th has 
Microsoft announced their new ``Trustworthy Computing'' campaign. By 
integrating unnecessary security in portions of their products that 
do not require it, they will be able to exempt themselves from the 
most important parts of the proposed settlement. It is for primarily 
this reason that I refuse to support the current proposed 
settlement.
    I wish to encourage the courts and involved litigants to find a 
settlement that will perform as intended. This is an issue far too 
serious to let such obvious loopholes ruin the works of the 
Department of Justice that I and many other taxpayers have paid for. 
Unless changes are made, the Department of Justice will not have met 
its obligations to the American Citizens.
    William Alan Sattler,
    Columbia, SC
    (803) 748-9876



MTC-00015824

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: microsoft settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Please settle this case and leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft 
provides excellent products and services at a very reasonable price. 
The monopoly I am most concerned about is the Federal Government. It 
gets its funds by confiscating my money and it has no competition at 
all.
    Richard Reed
    1208 Manor Park Ave
    Lakewood, Ohio



MTC-00015825

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    The proposed settlement is NOT appropriate. Any settlement 
should include cash money (not MS Software) and have a provision for 
mandatory public disclosure of API's to the OS and BackOffice 
software.
    I have 20 years of experience with computers and have watched 
the industry fairly closely during this time. MicroSoft has too much 
control over how PCs are used and should not be trusted. Just look 
at how well they followed your last decree.
    Hammer ``em,
    david
    David Poynter
    ADEQ--Computer Services Division
    (501) 682-0754
    [email protected]



MTC-00015826

From: Unknown
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not do 
enough to prevent Microsoft from spreading their Monopoly into other 
areas, or punish them for the abuses they have already been proven 
guilty of.
    Noah Bast
    5912 Petre Drive
    Auburn, NY 13021



MTC-00015827

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:09am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge K;
    It is essential for the functioning of a free economy that those 
very rare companies that establish a defacto monopoly in a critical 
industry be effectively regulated or at least overseen by the 
Federal government. The current draft of the PFJ completely fails in 
this regard. Free markets are great but where would our country be 
with only one supplier of oil, or only one railroad???
    Looking forward to your decision in this case.
    S Ambron
    2490 Sand Hill Road
    Menlo Park, CA 94025



MTC-00015828

From: Daniel R. Collins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Madam:
    As a professional software developer, I find the proposed 
settlement in the antitrust case between Microsoft Corporation and 
the Department of Justice to be disturbing in its insufficiency. The 
most telling detail of the settlement is that it, to my reading, 
will allow Microsoft to continue using its monopoly position freely 
in opposition to ``open source'' software developers--that is, 
software writers who work in a charitable and nonprofit capacity, 
leveraging the free-copying capacities of the Internet to benefit 
anyone who wishes to download and use their programs. On the one 
hand, ``open source'' examples such as the Linux operating system 
have clearly provided U.S. consumers and businesses with a less-
expensive, more robust, more efficient system for running personal 
computers; on the other hand, the proposed antitrust settlement will 
allow Microsoft to continue holding documentation, protocols, and 
APIs in secret from ``open source'' developers, because Microsoft 
only needs to release them to ``viable businesses'', as defined by 
the Microsoft corporation.
    The fact that this issue is important to Microsoft is best 
highlighted by the fact that Microsoft Windows Division Vice-
President Brian Valentine has written, ``''Linux is the long-term 
threat against our core business. Never forget that!'' (as reported 
at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/22770.html).
    However, Microsoft will be able to continue holding operating 
protocols in secret from the ``open source'' Linux developers, 
because, according to the proposed settlement's Section J: J. No 
provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, 
Documentation or Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy 
systems, anti-virus technologies, license enforcement mechanisms, 
authentication/authorization security, or third party intellectual 
property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any 
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee: (a) has no 
history of software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of 
intellectual property rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for 
the API, Documentation or Communications Protocol for a planned or 
shipping product, (c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense, 
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication 
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to 
test for and ensure verification and compliance with Microsoft 
specifications for use of the API or interface, which specifications 
shall be related to proper operation and integrity of the systems 
and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.''
    I hope that you will recognize the importance of extending the 
protections in Section J to charitable and ``open source'' 
developers, in addition to those serving as for-profit businesses.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel R. Collins
    Watertown, MA 02472
    [email protected]
    January 22, 2002



MTC-00015829

From: Dale Dixon
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Citizen, an Information Services professional and daily 
user of Microsoft software, I find that the proposed settlement is 
little more that a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. Microsoft's 
continuing aggressive tactics have reduced the options available to 
me, and has hurt me as a consumer. Substantive action needs to be 
taken now to prevent Microsoft from reducing choice even further and 
in market areas not currently in its control.
    Microsoft has no incentive by competition to create superior 
products and Microsoft products are commonly known to fraught with 
security flaws. Because it maintains a monopoly in operating systems 
and office

[[Page 26150]]

software, Microsoft can impose licensing fees and restrictions that 
cost consumers more than would be acceptable if these markets were 
truly open. I do not support a breakup of Microsoft, but the 
remedies proposed are not in proportion to the harmful acts that 
Microsoft has committed.
    Thank you,
    Dale L. Dixon
    Manager of Computer Operations
    VeenendaalCave, Inc.
    1275 Peachtree Street N.E.
    Suite 400
    Atlanta, Georgia 30309
    404.881.1811 ext.25
    www.vcave.com



MTC-00015830

From: brian washburn
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am a U.S. Citizen and have been a microcomputer enthusiast 
since the end of the 1970s; since 1991, I have been employed as a 
writer, editor and industry analyst in the high-tech field.
    Over the years, I've observed Microsoft use its market share in 
computer operating systems as a lever, systematically driving 
companies that were in its expansionist path out of business. I was 
encouraged that the Findings of Fact in this most recent Microsoft 
antitrust case uncovered some of these illegal practices. However, I 
believe the remedy proposed between the Dept. of Justice and 
Microsoft is grossly inadequate, and will be ineffectual in 
preventing the company from continuing its past conduct.
    If an effective remedy is not reached in this trial, based on 
Microsoft's past demonstrated behavior, it will all go back to the 
courts again in the future. Many more years and taxpayer dollars 
will need to be spent the next time around to put a more effective 
remedy into place. In those years, based on Microsoft's past 
demonstrated behavior, the computer industry will be subject to the 
company's monopoly hammer. Meanwhile, the potential damage the 
company can cause by using its operating system monopoly to destroy 
competition and build monopolies in other markets is immeasurable. I 
do not own stock or derive an income from computer software 
companies, whether Microsoft or competitors to Microsoft. I am 
writing this as a consumer who feels he has been harmed by 
Microsoft's business practices, and who has grave reservations about 
the future of consumer choice and the future vitality of the 
American high-tech economy under an inadequate settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Washburn
    151 Ridge Avenue
    Newton, MA 02459
    Tel. 617 965 6071
    Fax. 617 965 1019
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00015831

From: Seth Heidkamp
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to share my views on the Microsoft Antitrust 
settlement. The government has rules that they were a monopoly and 
acted illegally, and the proposed settlement is a joke. First, there 
is no way to enforce any of the agreements; the penalty for non-
compliance is an extended oversight period. This is like giving a 
convict parole, but if he doesn't meet the conditions (doesn't show 
up/consorts with known felons/etc) he just gets a longer parole. 
Second, Microsofts proposal to pay their fine with software to 
public schools is also ridiculous. They will be giving away a 
product at minimal cost to them (assuming that these schools would 
not have been able to afford the Windows software, Microsoft 
essentailly pays for the CD, a cost of about $5 for an $800 software 
package) while getting credit at the monopoly-inflated rates for 
their donations, while also further increasing their monopoly in one 
of the few marketplaces they haven't saturated.
    I think a more appropriate solution is to open up the API's to 
developers, the desktop to OEM's and distributors, and have the 
penalty for non-compliance or further illegal business practices be 
a breakup of the company.
    Seth Heidkamp
    Philadelphia, PA



MTC-00015832

From: Chad Eby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello!
    As a concerned end-user, I would like to state my belief that 
the proposed final judgement in United States v. Microsoft is flawed 
and inadequate in its current form. I am especially distressed that 
the proposed decision fails to prohibit anti-competitive license 
terms currently used by Microsoft. The continued prohibition in 
EULAs and other licenses against open source applications running on 
Windows platforms, as well as restrictive licensing terms designed 
to prevent Windows applications from running on competing operating 
systems is simply unacceptable. For genuine competition to occur, 
interoperability must be allowed.
    Sincerely,
    Chad Eby
    2531 W Katella Ln
    Springfield, MO 65807



MTC-00015833

From: Jim Phillips
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I am 
opposed to the proposed settlement because it fails to effectively 
prohibit a variety of anticompetitive practices Microsoft has 
historically employed to propagate its illegal and damaging 
monopoly, and because it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. 
The only effective solution is to break Microsoft into several 
corporations, separating the OS, internet, desktop, and 
entertainment application divisions and prohibiting collaboration 
among them. This alone would allow fair and effective competition.
    James Phillips
    405 W. Stanage Ave.
    Champaign, IL 61820



MTC-00015834

From: Sam Denton
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement.
    It is my opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment fails to 
prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEMs.
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' OEMs, if 
they offer competing products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    Sam Denton
    WAN Technologies, INC.
    (314) 428-0888/(800) 926-7771
    www.wantec.com
    Data & Telecommunications Solutions provider
    www.wancare.com
    Network Management Solutions



MTC-00015835

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I have cited below numerous problems with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement below. Please do not allow Microsoft to continue to enjoy 
an illegal monopoly by slapping them on the wrist like the last US 
DOJ/Microsoft agreement.
    Sincerely,
    Adam M. Kornick
    Here is a very rough summary which paraphrases provisions III.A 
through III.J and VI. of the Proposed Final Judgement to give some 
idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions:
    PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct: 1. Microsoft will not 
retaliate against OEMs

[[Page 26151]]

who support competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), 
Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger 
(WM), or Outlook Express (OE). 2. Microsoft will publish the 
wholesale prices it charges the top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment 
Manufacturers) for windows. 3. Microsoft will allow OEMs to 
customize the Windows menus, desktop, and boot sequence, and will 
allow the use of non-Microsoft bootloaders. 4. Microsoft will 
publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer Network) the APIs used by 
IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing web browsers, media 
players, and email clients can plug in properly to Windows. 5. 
Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network protocols 
needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems to 
connect to Windows servers. 6. Microsoft will not force business 
partners to refrain from supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, 
WMP, WM, or OE. 7. (Roughly same as F above.) 8. Microsoft will let 
users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, and let 
them designate competing products to be used instead. 9. Microsoft 
will license on reasonable terms any intellectual property rights 
needed for other companies to take advantage of the terms of this 
settlement. 10. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything 
having to do with security or copy protection.
    PFJ Section VI: Definitions: 1. ``API'' (Application Programming 
Interface) is defined as only the interfaces between Microsoft 
Middleware and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by 
other application programs. 2. ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is 
defined as Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows 
Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express 
(OE). 3. ``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined as Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional.
    The agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows: 
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let 
competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty 
payments.
    Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed terms 
of the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:
    Is the Proposed Final Judgement in the public interest? In the 
sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ deals with 
the above questions. How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined? The definitions of various terms in 
Part VI of the PFJ differ from the definitions in the Findings of 
Fact and in common usage, apparantly to Microsoft's benefit. Here 
are some examples: Definition A: ``API'' The Findings of Fact (? 2) 
define ``API'' to mean the interfaces between application programs 
and the operating system. However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it 
to mean only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and 
Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application 
programs. For instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit 
important APIs such as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used 
by installer programs to install software on Windows. Definition J: 
``Microsoft Middleware'' The Findings of Fact (? 28) define 
``middleware'' to mean application software that itself presents a 
set of APIs which allow users to write new applications without 
reference to the underlying operating system. Definition J defines 
it in a much more restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to exclude 
any software from being covered by the definition in two ways: 1. By 
changing product version numbers. For example, if the next version 
of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead of ``7'' or 
``7.0'', it would not be deemed Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ. 2. 
By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its middleware. For 
example, if Microsoft introduced a version of Windows which was only 
available via the Windows Update service, then nothing in that 
version of Windows would be considered Microsoft Middleware, 
regardless of whether Microsoft added it initially or in a later 
update. This is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 consent decree 
that allowed Microsoft to bundle its browser by integrating it into 
the operating system. Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' to mean 
essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows 
Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express 
(OE). The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and 
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect 
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
    The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is 
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook 
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the 
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are deveoped for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs. Definition U: ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible 
operating systems. Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional, 
Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and their successors. This 
purposely excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; many applications written to the 
Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be 
run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp:
    ``The Tablet PC is the next-generation mobile business PC, and 
it will be available from leading computer makers in the second half 
of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition and features the capabilities of current business laptops, 
including attached or detachable keyboards and the ability to run 
Windows-based applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by Windows 
Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Pocket 
PC in places (e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) currently 
served by Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be trying to 
evade the Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one example of 
how Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final Judgment by 
shifting its efforts away from the Operating Systems listed in 
Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, Windows CE, 
Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating System that can 
run Windows applications. How should the Final Judgment erode the 
Applications Barrier to Entry? The PFJ tries to erode the 
Applications Barrier to Entry in two ways:
    1. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used ``for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the information for the 
purpose of writing operating systems that interoperate with Windows 
programs. How should the Final Judgment be enforced? The PFJ as 
currently written appears to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a Technical Committee 
with investigative powers, but appears to leave all actual 
enforcement to the legal system. What information needs to be 
released to ISVs to encourage competition, and under what terms?
    The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing

[[Page 26152]]

the requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing 
ISVs.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs Section 
III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN or similar 
means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware 
Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be required at 
the time of the final beta test of the covered middleware, and 
whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 beta testers. 
But this information would almost certainly not be released in time 
for competing middleware vendors to adapt their products to meet the 
requirements of section III.H.3, which states that competing 
middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet unspecified 
technical requirements seven months before the final beta test of a 
new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented The PFJ's 
overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and 
``API'' means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release 
information about Windows interfaces would not cover many important 
interfaces.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation ISVs writing competing operating systems as 
outlined in Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty 
understanding various undocumented Windows APIs. The information 
released under section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--
except that the PFJ disallows this use of the information. Worse 
yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up 
their engineers into two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on 
Windows-only applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN 
because they work on applications which also run on non-Microsoft 
operating systems. This would constitute retaliation against ISVs 
who support competing operating systems.
    5. File Formats Remain Undocumented No part of the PFJ obligates 
Microsoft to release any information about file formats, even though 
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed Section 
III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license certain 
intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/
#secdisclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in 
an uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on 
Microsoft software patents? This can scare away potential users, as 
illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, Inc.: When selecting a 
method of porting a major application to Linux, one prospect of mine 
was comparing Wine [a competing implementation of some of the 
Windows APIs] and a toolkit called `MainWin'. MainWin is made by 
Mainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft. 
However, this customer elected to go with the Mainsoft option 
instead.
    I was told that one of the key decision making factors was that 
Mainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain 
critical patents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk 
crossing Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a 
chance to determine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to 
disprove the validity of this claim. The PFJ, by allowing this 
unclear legal situation to continue, is inhibiting the market 
acceptance of competing operating systems. Which practices towards 
OEMs should be prohibited? The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by 
Microsoft towards OEMs, but curiously allows the following 
exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system. Section III.B. requires 
Microsoft to license Windows on uniform terms and at published 
prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing about smaller OEMs. This 
leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, including 
important regional `white box'' OEMs, if they offer competing 
products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Which practices towards ISVs should be 
prohibited?
    Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with popular non-
Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples are given 
below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states 
... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); ... Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are 
shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable 
components. Applications that wish to use them must include the add-
ons, even though they might later become a standard part of Windows. 
Microsoft often provides those SDKs under End User License 
Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open Source 
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their 
applications under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the 
enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API 
installed, which is often not the case.
    Applications potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the 
competing middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office 
suite StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, 
and discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites. 
Additionally, since Open Source applications tend to also run on 
non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting loss of market share 
by Open Source applications indirectly harms competing operating 
systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems The Microsoft Platform SDK, 
together with Microsoft Visual C++, is the primary toolkit used by 
ISVs to create Windows-compatible applications. The Microsoft 
Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and 
distribute ... the Redistributable Components... provided that (a) 
you distribute the Redistributable Components only in conjunction 
with and as a part of your Application solely for use with a 
Microsoft Operating System Product...'' This makes it illegal to run 
many programs built with Visual C++ on Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems. Which practices towards large users should be 
prohibited? The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses 
its products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large 
users such as corporations, universities, or state and local 
goverments, collectively referred to as `enterprises'. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for 
each desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft 
operating system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is 
actually installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software. Which 
practices towards end users should be prohibited? Microsoft has used 
both restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities to 
discourage users from running Windows applications on Windows-
compatible competing operating systems. Two examples are given 
below.
    1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a

[[Page 26153]]

subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA 
states ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.] .... ``Only 
the Windows version appears to be available for download. Users who 
run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can run some 
Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of NewsAlert, 
but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and 
use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the 
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run 
programs written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not 
operating systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS 
API to interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was 
concerned with the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added 
code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and 
misleading error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's 
successor company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against 
Microsoft in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's 
consolidated response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary 
judgment.) The judge in the case ruled that ``Caldera has presented 
sufficient evidence that the incompatibilities alleged were part of 
an anticompetitive scheme by Microsoft.'' That case was settled out 
of court in 1999, and no court has fully explored the alleged 
conduct. The concern here is that, as competing operating systems 
emerge which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might 
try to sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development 
tools so that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, 
just as they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software. Is the Proposed Final Judgement in the public 
interest? The problems identified above with the Proposed Final 
Judgment can be summarized as follows:
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    * Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    * The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    * The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not 
be covered at all.
    * The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    * The PFJ supposedly applies to ``Windows'', but it defines that 
term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that all use 
the Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows Powered''.
    * The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    * The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    * The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    * Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    * Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-- even for 
computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned 
by the 1994 consent decree.)
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    * Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs--
including regional `white box'' OEMs which are historically the most 
willing to install competing operating systems--who ship competing 
software.
    * The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows (MI)As) 
to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket 
PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-
compatible operating systems to increase its market share in other 
areas.
    * The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.

Strengthening the PFJ

    The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the 
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have 
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems 
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from the 
PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar to 
elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes. In the sections 
below, I suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some 
of the demonstrated problems (time pressure has prevented a more 
complete list of amendments). When discussing amendments, PFJ text 
is shown indented; removed text in shown in [bracketed strikeout], 
and new text in bold italics. Correcting the PFJ's definitions 
Definition U should be amended to read U. ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' means [the software code (as opposed to source code) 
distributed commercially by Microsoft for use with Personal 
Computers as Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP 
Professional, and successors to the foregoing, including the 
Personal Computer versions of the products currently code named 
``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including 
upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion. ] any software or firmware code 
distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing 
any subset of the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, Windows 
XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE,

[[Page 26154]]

PocketPC 2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the 
products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and 
their successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. 
Release of information to ISVs TBD Section E should be amended to 
read ... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, [for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product,] for the purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product or with application software 
written for Windows, 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 .... Prohibition of More Practices Toward 
OEMs TBD
    ?III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended to 
read
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a 
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System 
Product; or ... Prohibition of More Practices Toward ISVs TBD 
Prohibition of Certain Practices Toward End Users TBD

Summary

    This document is not yet complete, but it does demonstrate that 
there are so many problems with the PFJ that it is not in the public 
interest. It also illustrates how one might try to fix some of these 
problems.



MTC-00015836

From: Gabriel Gerhardsson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi
    I'm not a citizen of the USA. But I feel that in the global 
society we live in today this settlement effects more than the USA, 
indeed, I believe it affects the whole world!
    I strongly urge you to not accept the settlement in it's current 
form. It is full of legal ``loopholes'' and vague language that 
severely limits the effectiveness in many areas.
    E.g. Microsoft should be required to disclose ALL of it's 
(current and future) APIs (Application Protocol Interfaces) and 
network protocols. It should be released in a totally open way that 
doesn't set any limits on who's allowed to view, use and distribute 
the information. Be that a private person or a company, everyone 
should have full access to the information.
    This is a crucial weakness in the current settlement. I truly 
hope that you take my views in consideration.
    Sincerely
    Gabriel Gerhardsson, Sweden



MTC-00015837

From: Tom B
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Opposition To)
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to express my opposition to the proposed settlement 
in the Microsoft antitrust trial. The proposed settlement does not 
fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor 
inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
Microsoft went into this case sure that it could buy its way out. 
Their cocky behavior preceding, during and after the trial only 
proved that they did not take the situation seriously. At the time I 
thought this was an egregious error on their part. Then proposed 
settlement was released and I, and many like me, were stunned.
    Any settlement needs to have provisions to deal effectively with 
Microsoft's ``Embrace and Extend'' attitude towards its competition. 
In order to continue to flourish, the computer world needs more 
diversity and more interoperability. That second word, 
``interoperability'' is crucial. Microsoft could work with its peers 
in the industry to make its products work together with new 
innovations and break-throughs. Instead, Microsoft prefers to crush 
competitors under the weight of its monopolies in Operating Systems 
and Office software.
    As a developer, I work with Microsoft software consistently and 
I am aware of the contributions they have made to the industry. That 
being said, they do not deserve a break on this settlement. Their 
practices stifle the industry, leave potential innovators afraid to 
compete, and lock out those Microsoft doesn't favor.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, this settlement seems content to leave Microsoft as 
tyrant of the software world. It is unjust and will encourage the 
sort of behavior that brought this trial about. To encourage another 
explosion of innovation, Microsoft's monopolistic behavior must be 
regulated and the company made answerable for its actions.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Bellin
    Suffern, NY 10901



MTC-00015838

From: Coons, Chip
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Any settlement with a company that has :
    *Stolen software from competitors,
    *Denied users the basic freedom to choose which software they 
are allowed to use,
    *Destroyed competition by implementing a continuous upgrade/
change file format practice to eliminate any hopes of compatibility, 
and
    *Used their monopoly position to eliminate market pressures 
(decreasing costs to consumers through competition) should not get 
off with a slap on the wrist.
    Either their behavior was wrong (which the courts have found) 
and they should be punished, or drop the case and stop wasting my 
tax dollars, since the government will probably need them to upgrade 
future Microsoft products. Any settlement that allows the company to 
continue with their predatory practices is unacceptable, and as 
currently proposed, there are no real, enforceable restraints on 
Microsoft's current and future behavior. Should this settlement go 
through, please launch an immediate investigation for fraud and/or 
undue influence, since someone besides the consumer is benefiting.
    Chip Coons



MTC-00015839

From: Jacobs Robert
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir or Madam,
    I would just like to add my voice to those who object to the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case proposed settlement. This settlement does 
nothing to punish Microsoft for their anti-competitive practices. 
Placing a three-man oversight committee on Microsoft's premises (of 
which one member is selected by Microsoft and the second member is 
``approved'' by Microsoft is in no way ``punishment''. How can we 
this committee rightly be called an ``oversight committee'' when 
Microsoft is likely to select members who are disposed to their 
position?)
    Where are the penalties levied against Microsoft for ruthlessly 
bullying their opponents out of the market? Why isn't Microsoft 
being assessed fines from their ill-gotten gains? How is Microsoft 
being punished for the practices that have gotten them where they 
are today? If you do not punish them financially. When a child 
steals from the cookie jar and you tell the child ``That was wrong, 
don't do it again...and I'll be watching you'', but you don't take 
back the cookie, did the child learn anything? The child has not 
been punished and will, likely, attempt the same manuever again as 
soon as your back is turned.
    For a moment, I was encouraged to see that Microsoft is required 
to be more ``open'' with their specifications (application program 
interface (API))--until I read further into the settlement only to 
see that Microsoft could determine which APIs were critical to their 
business and should not be released. Have we gotten anywhere with 
them, then?
    Microsoft deserves its bad reputation among computer industry 
professionals who stand for progress and innovation. Microsoft does 
not innovate .... Microsoft stamps out competition by offering their 
products ``bundled'' or ``integrated'' with their operating system 
and then convincing hardware manufacturers to include their 
products.
    Robert A. Jacobs
    Computer Analyst
    Northrop Grumman Information Technology
    (402) 293-3943 [email protected]
    ``...security experts don't pick on Microsoft because we have 
some fundamental dislike for the company. Indeed, Microsoft's poor 
products are one of the reasons we're in business.''
    -- Bruce Schneier, Founder and CTO
    Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.



MTC-00015840

From: Dennis Heltzel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Heltzel, MBA

[[Page 26155]]

Senior Database Administrator
Adolor Corporation
620 Pennsylvania Drive
Exton, PA 19341-1127
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. I am particularly concerned that while the 
settlement claims to require the publishing of windows API's, it 
defines and restricts this in a way that Microsoft can use to avoid 
complying with the spirit of the settlement. If anyone supposes that 
Microsoft will comply with the spirit of the settlement, they should 
examine Microsoft's history regarding previous government 
settlements, where they have consistently pushed the limits of what 
they themselves agreed to. In fact, that's mostly why they are back 
here in court now.
    I urge you to change the settlement to be fairer to the 
customers and competitors of Microsoft. This is likely your only 
opportunity to do so. The amount of effort that the government must 
expend to bring cases like this to a successful conclusion is 
enormous and I'm sure any future DOJ will think twice before taking 
on the Microsoft monopoly. But since you already have the decree and 
judgments, lets finish the job and make the settlement one that is 
good for the free market of America.
    Thanks you for letting me express my opinion on this matter.
    Dennis Heltzel



MTC-00015841

From: Scott ``dolomite'' Leonard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft (Canadian perspecitve)
    While I am a Canadian citizen, after September 11, I feel closer 
to the US than I ever have, which is why I am sending you this note. 
In this time of co- patriotism, we must embrace democracy and we 
must propound quality and we must disdain selfish interests. There 
must be a passion to work together as countries, and as people. 
Working together is not something Microsoft does well. They don't 
behave well with other companies. You should force them to. 
Microsoft products are getting worse as time goes on. Right now, for 
example, the end user has no choice but to use a Microsoft product 
if they own a PC because there simply isn't another operating system 
good enough to use other than the Microsoft products. When something 
goes wrong with a Microsoft product, the consumer has no other 
choice but to accept it and wait for a patch because they can not 
return it, and even if they could, they would have nothing to work 
on in the meantime because the damage is done.
    Any other product I buy must work or I can return it for a full 
refund and buy something else like it. This is not the case with 
Microsoft. Stiffer penalties against Microsoft might not be enough 
now that the damage is done.
    Maybe Microsoft could provide awards to businesses who want to 
compete with them?
    Maybe the state needs to offer some business incentives to 
companies who want to compete with Microsoft. They can get the money 
from Microsoft for that. :)
    Scott Leonard
    Kingston, Ontario
    Canada
    PS: Would you buy a car from Microsoft if they made one?



MTC-00015842

From: Chuck Hinson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I would like to state that I am opposed to the settlement that 
has been proposed in the Microsoft antitrust trial. I do not feel 
that the settlement even begins to address illegal behaviors found 
by the Court, and leaves Microsoft more or less free to continue 
operating as they always have. Furthermore, I am upset that while 
Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly--in violation of law--the 
settlement provides no real punishments. Simply forbidding the 
repitition of previously committed illegal acts is in no way a 
punishment for the illegal activity. Without some sort of redress, 
Microsoft will have been allowed to get away with and profit from 
their illegal activities.
    Sincerely
    Charles Hinson
    King Of Prussia, PA 19406



MTC-00015843

From: Timothy Wall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer with a degree from MIT and over 20 years 
experience developing software for Unix, Macintosh, Windows, and 
Linux, I'd like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United 
States vs Microsoft. I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. 
It does nothing to punish the company for its proven illegal 
practices, nor does it do anything to effectively prevent the 
company from continuing those same practices. The company has proven 
that it has no respect for the legal system, nor acceptable business 
practices, except what it can buy or subterfuge. The proposed final 
judgment allows the company's exclusionary tactics to continue, with 
no direct measures included to overcome the barriers to entry that 
the company has established.
    I am ashamed of a legal system that can be bought or persuaded 
of anything easily by a company that has proven itself willing and 
capable of falsifying evidence in a court of law. I personally have 
been affected by this compony's monopolistic practices. No 
innovation is allowed without the company's consent. I have seen 
excellent research stamped out or bought by the company and shelved, 
simply because the monopoly did not see it fit with its business 
interests.
    I and my developers are daily forced to work with arcane and 
poorly designed APIs (methods of writing software), because the 
monopoly has forced all others out of the market. If the company 
absolutely *must* be left with its monopoly, then the remedy 
absolutely *must* address the issues of permitting software 
developers to have sufficient leverage to change the system in which 
they are forced to work. There is no current such system in place. 
If I want to see a bug fixed in the company's operating system, I 
have to pay simply for the privilege of telling them about it, let 
alone have it fixed.
    The company has been trying for years to leverage its monopoly 
into other spheres of influence. One with which ! am intimately 
familiar is embedded systems, where the company has thus far failed 
to gain any significant foothold, even in the face of their claimed 
``innovations'' in the field. Why? Because embedded developers have 
significant choice, and the company has no compelling offerring in 
the face of those choices. Its claims of ``innovation'' fall flat 
when there is something to compare to, if there is the choice of an 
alternative. Any other company would have long since have run out of 
money, trying to sell an unwanted product into such a space; but 
this one, primarily because the embedded space is such a big market, 
will keep trying. Even given this lack of success, the company 
claims ``thousands of registered developers'', which, reading 
between the lines, means someone downloaded their beta evaluation 
software. I provide this example to show that the company's supposed 
``innovations'' and successes in other markets cannot be taken at 
face value. Any claims of the company need to be closely examined 
and objectively proven.
    Timothy Wall
    Director of Software Development
    Oculus Technologies, Inc.



MTC-00015844

From: jon herman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against this settlement
    -- jon Herman



MTC-00015845

From: Steven Schuldt
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in favor of the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    Steven Schuldt



MTC-00015846

From: Williford, Blake
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the settlement. The only way to bring back healthy 
innovative business into the computer market is to reorganize 
Microsoft into several smaller companies; and not allowing any 
person to own stock in more than one of the new companies.
    Thank you for your time.
    ``... An omelette, promised in two minutes, may appear to be 
progressing nicely. ...when it has not set in two minutes, the 
customer has two choices -- wait or eat it raw. Software customers 
have ... the same choices.'' --Frederick P. Brooks, Jr, The Mythical 
Man-Month



MTC-00015847

From: Christian Borgnaes
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26156]]

    It's ironic that Microsoft was praised for being a fierce 
competitor as the company grew and now they're reviled for the same 
practices. The difference is that they've now got a monopoly and 
like it or not those competitive practices are preventing further 
competition!
    The settlement as proposed simply does not prevent Microsoft 
from preserving their operating system monopoly and thereby 
leveraging it to sell their other products--the very definition of 
anti-competitive practice. Nothing short of unconditional licensing 
of their source code will prevent this, even with an oversight 
committee.
    One of Microsoft's suggestions was to provide computers for 
education. This is the seed of a good idea that ultimately will grow 
to be in their favor: an entire generation raised on their operating 
systems. If they are to give something to education have it be cash. 
There's plenty of school districts that are in need of far more 
essential things than computers. If it must be computers, insist 
that all Microsoft's expense goes for hardware and have a different 
operating system installed, like Linux. This would certainly 
increase competition in the long run.
    Christian C Borgns
    (314)729-3079
    [email protected]
    ``The way ahead intrigues me, from hell to hallelujah.''--Corwin 
of Amber



MTC-00015848

From: Michael Piatek
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen called to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, it is clear to me that the current proposal does not 
agree with the spirit of antitrust in that it fails to punish 
Microsoft severely enough for its actions and it fails to set up 
adequate means to eliminate its exercising of monopoly power in the 
future.
    Michael Piatek



MTC-00015849

From: Kim, Won
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is farcical and counts as a massive 
betrayal of the public trust. Microsoft's predatory, anti-
competitive business practices should be addressed with much more 
stringent measures that have some bite--that will make Microsoft's 
board and executives act with a bit more restraint in the future.



MTC-00015850

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to voice my displeasure at the settlement proposed 
for the Microsoft Antitrust case.
    With text that determines the defination of a Windows Operating 
System Product including the following: ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' Indicates that by simply 
changing the name of a product they could avoid a lot of the 
restrictions.
    Add on Microsoft's tendency to bend ethics in sending support 
letters from the deceased, I would not be surprised if they would 
bend words to simply avoid restrictions in the proposed settlement.
    Thank You,
Jon Beckett Schreiber
IT Testing Analyst
Manpower



MTC-00015851

From: Johan A. van Zanten
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Proposed Settlement Bad
    Greetings.
    I'm submitting my comments per the Tunney Act, regarding the 
U.S. governments settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust case. I've 
been a computing professional for over ten years. Back in 1987, 
Microsoft profited from the sale of decent software (such as 
Microsoft Word), and consumers of that software generally benefited 
from Microsoft's existence and business.
    Now, with Microsoft's plainly-apparent goal being to establish a 
monopoly over all computer-related areas of the economy, this is not 
the case. In many major categories, such as word processors, 
consumers have fewer practical choices of software now than they did 
10 years ago, simply because Microsoft's dominance.
    Further, Microsoft modifies their own products in order to force 
consumers to ``upgrade'' when such an upgrade does not benefit the 
consumer. Microsoft is an entirely selfish corporation that is out 
of control, and the U.S. government is the only entity that can stop 
it. Microsoft should be broken up in to separate distinct companies 
that are prohibited from collaborating.
    -johan
    Johan van Zanten
    ``And so once again we find that the evil of the past seeps into 
the present, like salad dressing through cheap waxed paper.''
    System Wrangler
    Tumbleweed Electron Wranglers, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00015852

From: Afgncaap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    After having read about the proposed settlement, I felt 
compelled to add my own opinion to the volume of opinions given 
under the Tunney act.
    The settlement, like it or not, smacks of appeasement. It seems 
to do little to diminish anti-competitive practices. I'm going to 
make the leap of faith and assume that this was indeed intended; I'm 
positive that the Department of Justice has sufficient legal 
resources to determine the numbers and effects of the loopholes 
present in the settlement as proposed.
    Therefore, I have to wonder, what is the DoJ trying to 
accomplish. My best guess is that concern over the economic state of 
the United States is at the forefront of the DoJ's collective mind, 
and that the desire is not to quelch ANY successful business, on the 
theory that to diminish the power and market share of a major 
company would be a blow to Wall Street and the economy.
    I would ask that you reconsider. Squelching Microsoft's anti-
competetive behaviour is in the best interests of the economy as a 
whole. Even severely limited in her ability to market and dispense 
her products, Microsoft will still be a strong force in the 
computing world. Nothing will change that short of destroying the 
company completely. Enough people know and trust Microsoft, with her 
unparalleled ease of use and the widespread familiarity with her OS 
and applications, that Microsoft will continue to be the number one 
for years to come. On the other hand, permitting competing products 
like MacOS, Linux, and the various other OSes and products like 
AOL's Netscape and the lesser known Mozilla the opportunity to prove 
themselves to the open market can only help the viability of these 
other companies, and increase job availability and tax revenues.
    I don't propose destroying Microsoft. It's a valuable company 
that it is in the best interests of the United States to keep 
strong. But Microsoft will not see its strength diminished by the 
presence of other competitors.
    Thank you for your time.
    Paul Meixner
    Middleton, WI



MTC-00015853

From: Guy Helmer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  11:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the Microsoft 
settlement's inadequacy in improving the competitive environment in 
the software industry.
    I agree with the complaints and proposed resolutions expressed 
by Zimran Ahmed, which are stated as follows:
    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

[[Page 26157]]

computer and Windows 2000 Server or products marketed as its 
successors running on a server computer and connected via a local 
area network or a wide area network.'' This definition explicitly 
excludes the SMB/CIFS (Samba) protocol and all of the Microsoft RPC 
calls needed by any SMB/CIFS server to adequately interoperate with 
Windows 2000. Microsoft could claim these protocols are used by 
Windows 2000 server for remote administration and as such would not 
be required to be disclosed. The Samba team have written this up 
explicitly here: http://linuxtoday.com/news--story.php3?ltsn=2001-
11-06-005-20-OP-MS
    3) General veto on interoperability In section J., the document 
specifically protects Microsoft from having to ``document, disclose 
or license to third parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation 
or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the disclosure of 
which would compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, 
software licensing, digital rights management, encryption or 
authentication systems, including without limitation, keys, 
authorization tokens or enforcement criteria''
    Since the .NET architecture being bundled into Windows 
essentially builds ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, 
digital rights management, and authentication systems'' into all 
levels of the operating system, ANY API, documentation, or 
communication layer can fall into this category. This means that 
Microsoft never has to disclose any API by claiming it's part of a 
security or authorization system, giving them a complete veto over 
ALL disclosure.
    4) Veto against Open Source Substantial amounts of the software 
that runs the Internet is ``Open Source'', which means it's 
developed on a non-commercial basis by nonprofit groups and 
volunteers. Examples include Apache, GNU/Linux, Samba, etc. Under 
section J.2.c., Microsoft does not need to make ANY API available to 
groups that fail to meet ``reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business.'' This explicitly gives them a veto over 
sharing any information with open source development projects as 
they are usually undertaken on a not-for-profit basis (and therefore 
would not be considered authentic, or viable businesses).
    These concerns can be met in the following ways:
    1) Middleware: Extend middleware interoperability with a 
Microsoft server to ALL contexts (both within general Web browsing 
as well as other networked services such as are those being included 
under .NET).
    2) Interoperability: Require full disclosure of ALL protocols 
between client and Microsoft server (including remote administration 
calls)
    3) General veto on interoperability: Require Microsoft to 
disclose APIs relating to ``anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption, or authentication 
systems'' to all.
    4) Veto against Open Source: Forbid Microsoft from 
discriminating between for-profit and nonprofit groups in API 
disclosure.



MTC-00015854

From: Rich
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments are brief... The Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) 
falls short in many ways but some of the more significant points 
include...
    * The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions.
    These provisions are so narrowly defined that the impact upon 
Microsoft is almost nil. For instance, releasing API documentation 
to ISV producing compatible middleware is not mandated until AFTER 
the deadline for the ISVs to that their middleware is compatible. 
Not doesn't this make sense, it is just plain silly and is part of a 
rather obvious attempt to present the appearance of Microsoft being 
punished when in reality, they are being given added competitive 
edge.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    Licensing practices have long been an issue with Microsoft. The 
PFJ does almost nothing to retrict the predatory practices of 
Microsoft in their dealing with clients. The same licenses and 
practices were banned once upon a time by the 1994 consent decree.
    * The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    This is such a well documented problem that it is hard to 
believe that the PFJ does not address it to the satisfaction of 
anyone but Microsoft.
    These incompatibilities have hurt consumers and ISVs and are 
aloowed to continue unabated. Shame on the PFJ for not resolving 
this issue.
    Rich Irvine
    Systems Admin
    SysAdmin / Senior Systems Consultant
    ArchWing Innovations LLC
    www.archwing.com
    ``They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''



MTC-00015855

From: Lucas Gonze
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: comment on Microsoft settlement
    Speaking as a senior Internet developer, published author on 
Internet topics, and an Internet entrepreneur, I believe that the 
proposed settlement is too little, too late. In my business there is 
virtually no possibility of building desktop software like word 
processors or web browsers. Investors won't fund it. The reason is 
that every such effort has failed whenever Microsoft decided to 
enter the business themselves.
    Due to network effects, achieving a larger pool of users is the 
largest factor in creating useful software and hence selling 
software profitably. Microsoft's ability to bundle end user software 
with Windows means that they can create a larger pool of users at 
will. The only software developers to escape Microsoft do it by 
luck, when Microsoft actively decides not to take their market. The 
default in any desktop software market is for Microsoft to have it; 
there is simply no way to beat the company's ability to bundle 
software with the operating system.
    This is the definition of a monopoly. There is no possibility of 
competition, so independent innovation cannot happen.
    What independent developers like myself need is for the Justice 
Department to ensure that we can enter the end user software market. 
Without intervention by the Justice Department, we cannot. The 
proposed settlement leaves us locked out of the end user software 
business.
    Sincerely,
    Lucas Gonze
    CEO
    WorldOS Corp.
    109 Ainslie Street, Suite 2
    Brooklyn NY 11211



MTC-00015856

From: Aurangzeb M. Agha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs--
    I'm writing as the CEO of a Silicon Valley based software 
consultancy. I am writing to state that I believe that the proposed 
settlement between the U.S. and Microsoft is flawed and will serve 
very little in fostering competition and punishing Microsoft. It 
will in effect, let Microsoft get away with less than a ``slap on 
the wrist''.
    I hope you'll take this opportunity promote capitalism, fairness 
in commerce, and the growth of technology by pursuing justice and 
not letting Microsoft walk away triumphantly after having been found 
guilty by the U.S. courts.
    Sincerely,
    Aurangzeb Agha
    Aurangzeb M. Agha
    Email : [email protected]
    CEO
    Missing Link Tech. Partners, Inc.
    Voice : +1 415 412.4234
    236 West Portal Ave. #292
    eFax : +1 208 728.2857
    San Francisco, CA 94127
    USA



MTC-00015857

From: Olga Burger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Litigation
    To Whom It May Concern, I as a user of the Microsoft products, 
disagree with the litigation process US DOJ versus Microsoft. I 
strongly believe that Microsoft has done nothing illegal. The DOJ 
should not pursue litigation and waste taxpayers money.
    Regards,
    Olga Burger



MTC-00015858

From: Susheel M. Daswani
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    I am writing to make known my displeasure with the government's 
settlement with Microsoft (MS) in the MS antitrust case. MS has used 
and, more importantly, is still using its monopoly in the desktop 
Operating System (OS) market to squash competition

[[Page 26158]]

and hinder innovation. The current settlement does not solve this 
problem, and needs to be reevaluated.
    Thanks.
    Susheel M. Daswani
    Software Engineer



MTC-00015859

From: Collective Automatic Shoes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I want to point out that i feel that the settlement proposed for 
microsoft is a poor solution. It is too light of a punishment for a 
company who has abusively monopolized it's market for over 5 years. 
I hate to see the settlement take longer, but if the time is taken 
to do it right, it will be worth it.



MTC-00015860

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to comment on the Proposed Final Judgment against 
Microsoft for it's anti-competitive practices and illegal monopoly. 
According to the Court of Appeals, ``a remedies decree in an 
antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive 
conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the 
defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that 
there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future'' (section V.D., p. 99). I do not believe the PFJ serve this 
purpose. As such, I would like to voice my opposition to the PFJ. 
Specifically, I do not believe the PFJ provides enough protection to 
Independent Software Vendors (ISV) who attempt to provide compatible 
operating systems with Microsoft products. Just like the consent 
decree of 1995, the PFJ provides too many loop holes allowing 
Microsoft to continue in their anti-competitive practices. For a 
more detailed analysis refer to these essays:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html.
    http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2002/01/16/competition/
index.html
    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/015/business/
Microsoft_case_key_to_tech_s_future+.shtml
    http://computeruser.com/articles/2101,3,1,1,0101,02.html
    http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-OP-
MS
    http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3952/1/
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy1.html
    http://lwn.net/2001/1213/a/wwn011212.php3
    http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/121001.html
    http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html
    http://www.netaction.org/msoft/winfish2.html
    http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/11/02/opinion/
dgillmor/weblog/index.htm
    http://www.ccianet.org/papers/ms/sellout.php3
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html
    http://www.lamlaw.com/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlowMain.html
    (__) Doug Alcorn (mailto:[email protected] http://www.lathi.net) oo 
/ PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1 61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543
    _/ If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and 
they're free, you don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.



MTC-00015861

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea. A proper settlement must: 
provide redress to the companies whose software innovation has been 
denied access to markets by the continuing illegal monopolistic 
practices of the Microsoft corporation provide restructuring of 
Microsoft corporation and restraints on the resulting companies to 
effectively deny their cooperation to achieve the same result, and 
provide ALL companies equal and open access to all their products 
interfaces and formats provide severe punitive economic sanctions to 
dissuade such egregious corporate injury to free market enterprise 
in the United States of America ever again.
    Respectfully,
    Mark Beumeler
    [email protected]



MTC-00015862

From: frosty
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please do not allow Microsoft to continue its disregard for the 
United States justice system by concession. Microsoft is no longer 
in a position of compromise; the company has been found to have 
abused its monopoly powers. This settlement approach with Microsoft 
seems as ludicrous as a child negotiating his way out of a spanking 
by brokering a deal that he will no longer ``get'' to eat his 
broccoli. Microsoft has been and continues to be anti-competitive. 
Their sights are now set on Linux, which stands, perhaps, as the 
last best chance for a competitor to rise in the market and 
challenge Microsoft's stranglehold on innovation and value. Please 
don't let Microsoft fleece us again.
    Sincerely,
    Michaell Frost
    3517 6th Place NW
    Rochester, MN 55901
    [email protected]



MTC-00015863

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundreds, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices. Even after being found guilty of 
being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not changed. 
Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe criminal 
penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I can see 
will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a state of 
competition.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment''instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, 
they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not 
justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    The United States is a successful nation because its free 
markets encourage firms to compete for customers by producing high-
quality, low-cost goods. This system needs to be protected from 
monopolists who gain so much power that they can destroy the 
competitive nature of the markets in which they participate.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jeremiah Anspach
    33 Livingston Avenue
    Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522



MTC-00015864

From: Jean-Michel Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment''instructions that they cannot commit 
those acts again, they have still

[[Page 26159]]

benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not for the 
victims of their abuses and not for the American people in general. 
While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jean-Michel Smith
    531 S. Plymouth Ct.
    Chicago, IL 60605
    (Systems Engineer)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015865

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  3:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am against the proposed settlement for two reasons.
    1. The way the settlement currently reads: Section III.A.2. 
allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that ships Personal 
Computers containing a competing Operating System but no Microsoft 
operating system. AND Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license 
Windows on uniform terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMs, 
but says nothing about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to 
retaliate against smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white 
box'' OEMs, if they offer competing products.
    The company that builds my computers should be allowed to 
install any operating system that the customer wants.
    2. No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.



MTC-00015866

From: Nathaniel J Bezanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
from Nathaniel Bezanson
1820 Briarwood
Madison Heights, MI 48071
    I've noticed an anticompetitive practice in use by Microsoft 
that the Courts seem to have overlooked. Please consider the 
following:
    A friend of mine recently purchased a new computer with Windows 
preinstalled. I suggested that she should try the Linux operating 
system. She was open to the idea, and her only reservation was being 
able to go back to Windows, should she not like Linux. ``Well that's 
easy enough,'' I said, ``you just take your Windows original CD and 
reinstall it.'' ``My what?'' came her reply. It turns out that she 
had a --license-- to run Windows, and it was preloaded on her 
computer, but there was no original media from which to (re)install 
it.
    Without the ability to (easily and legally) reinstall Windows, 
Linux was a one-way trip. She wasn't about to take that chance. For 
a user who's curious about alternate operating systems but already 
comfortable with Windows, that's a formidable deterrent. The 
practice of preloading Windows but not including original media 
forms an effective barrier, preventing users from trying alternate 
operating systems.
    I hope this is considered when revising and expanding the 
Proposed Final Judgement to a version that more accurately addresses 
Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.
    Thanks for your time!
    Nathaniel Bezanson



MTC-00015867

From: Jacob M Wilkens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea...



MTC-00015868

From: David Forrest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea since it doesn't require 
Microsoft to release the documentation on Microsoft Office 
documents. If the data enclosed in them can only be read by 
Microsoft programs, then they will have a monopoly on future data 
access.
    Dave
    Dave Forrest
    [email protected]
    (434) 296-7283h 924-3954w
    http://mug.sys.virginia.edu/drf5n/



MTC-00015869

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'd like to go on record as being opposed to the proposed 
Microsoft antitrust settlement.
    Eric Burgess
    Senior Programmer
    IT Software Development
    VarTec Telecom, Inc.
    1600 Viceroy Drive
    Dallas, Texas 75235
    Phone: 214-424-6534



MTC-00015870

From: Ashok Narayanan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Comments on the Microsoft antitrust settlement
    Sir,
    Under the Tunney act I would like to submit my comments on the 
proposed Microsoft settlement for antitrust suits currently sub 
judice.
    In my view the proposed settlement is a very bad solution for 
consumers. Penalizing an alleged monopolist by providing government-
approved mechanisms to expand their monopoly is clearly not a 
penalty. Further, the proposed cash inflow of $1 billion by 
Microsoft is a deceptive figure. Software, by it's nature, has a 
very low marginal cost per unit manufactured, and for Microsoft, the 
marginal cost of deploying ``$500 million'' worth of software is 
probably in the range of $250,000-$500,000. This cash penalty is a 
mere pittance when compared to the billions of dollars Microsoft is 
holding in its war chests--much of which has been accumulated by the 
price-fixing and monopolistic distribution and licensing practices 
which the current trial seeks to stop.
    The argument that the license costs for software in this penalty 
are accurate since otherwise ``these schools would have had to 
purchase these licenses anyways'' is also flawed. Even if the 
schools would have had to purchase licenses for software on their 
computers, it is not clear that they would have had to buy the 
licenses from Microsoft. Linux and alternative free software 
solutions have no per-seat license costs, and MacOS is an example of 
an alternative software which requires licenses. For Microsoft to 
claim to provide free software is tantamount to their attempting to 
lock competitors out of this market by giving away free goods. This 
in itself is a form of monopoly extension. By leveraging their 
existing monopoly on operating systems and browsers in the 
workplace, they are giving away their software free in schools in 
order to expand their monopoly into this area as well.
    If this sort of settlement is really on the cards, let Microsoft 
donate $1 billion of hardware and cash. Allow the beneficiaries to 
individually select the software that they wish to deploy on these 
machines.
    The tobacco settlement was not paid in cigarettes!
    Sincerely,
    Ashok Narayanan
    --Asok the Intern
    Ashok Narayanan
    IOS Network Protocols, Cisco Systems
    250 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824
    Ph: 978-497-8387. Fax: 978-497-8513 (Attn: Ashok Narayanan)



MTC-00015871

From: Lynn Pye
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of the United States I am very disappointed with 
the remedy that had been proposed for the Microsoft settlement. The 
settlement is intended to accomplish two goals, punishing Microsoft 
for its behavior and assisting those who might benefit from the 
proposal. Unfortunately, the settlement, as proposed, accomplishes 
neither goal.
    First, the proposal helps Microsoft more than punishing it. 
Microsoft has sufficient cash on hand to not have to accrue any debt 
to fulfill the spirit of the proposal, which was to cost Microsoft 
$1 billion in cash. However, even this was not accomplished as 
Microsoft was attributing the retail price of their own software 
toward the fulfillment of the settlement fund requirements. This is 
at pennies on the dollar given that they can duplicate the software 
on CD's at the cost of less than $1 per CD for a software package 
that can cost $200. In addition, their software would have been 
forced onto a market which currently is not deeply penetrated by 
Microsoft. Second, those who are supposed to benefit from this 
settlement, the schools, won't. The costs are for the initial 
purchase of software and for a few years of licensing. Afterwards, 
the software must be relicensed, said cost to be expended by the 
schools.

[[Page 26160]]

Given that they would have had to switch their processes over to the 
Microsoft software and become reliant on that software, relicensing 
would have been necessary or additional expenditure would be 
necessary to switch away from Microsoft. Most business today stay 
with Microsoft, in spite of the fees, because the short term cost of 
switching away is not palatable.
    I strongly recommend rethinking the proposal such that those who 
are to be punished, be punished. Those who need help, should be 
helped. But please don't confuse politics with justice. They are 
rarely to be found in happy union.
    Lynn Pye



MTC-00015872

From: Jeremy Walker
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs,
    Unfortunately I'm not blessed with the time to fully analyze the 
court proceedings involving the Microsoft Settlement. That's not my 
job, it's yours and I have to place my trust in you, that you are 
doing your job in the best interest of the population of the United 
States as a whole. The research that I have had time to make, as 
well as information I have received from other sources I trust point 
me to believe that, in this case, my trust has been misplaced
    The danger of Microsoft's monopolies, in my opinion, do not stem 
from any individuals personal monetary gain. It stems from the 
destructive impact that Microsofts anti competitive practice has on 
the advancement of computer science as a whole. Microsoft has done 
some great things and in many ways has advanced the usability of 
computing, but it's practices have inhibited and often destroyed the 
advances of many. Microsoft may be a large ``one'' that contributes 
much but the advances and knowledge Microsoft has actively destroyed 
in the open source, academic and competitive consumer markets are 
incalculable. You can not calculate the future impact of what has 
been quashed.
    Due to the existing reality of Microsofts practices damaging 
research in competitive computer solutions, impacting both the 
financial and scientific advancement of the United States as a whole 
I must complain that the restrictions/practices proposed in the 
Microsoft Settlement are in no manner sufficient to the task set 
before them. The provisions for enforcement of the flimsy 
restrictions to be placed on Microsoft are as inadequate as the 
restrictions themselves..
    In my mind the goal of this settlement is not to harm Microsoft, 
but to protect the United States and the field of Computer Science 
from the damage Microsoft inflicts by attempting to further itself 
at the cost of others. ``United We Stand'' is our creed and yet we 
are letting the one defy the will of the many. I encourage you to 
think of the United States as a whole and to act in its best 
interest for the future and not the now. A single strong company is 
an attractive and palpable entity but we must be forward thinking as 
to how, we the people, are best served for now and the future.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Walker



MTC-00015873

From: Norman Yamada
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current settlement with Microsoft is unacceptable for many 
reasons. I have three particular concerns:
    (1) that the proposed settlement doesn't force Microsoft to 
release any of its file formats; (2) the proposed settlement doesn't 
force Microsoft to disclose which of it's patents protect the 
Windows API; and (3) that the proposed settlement allows Microsoft 
to continue its anticompetitive licensing terms against Open Source 
apps on Windows; and to continue to retaliate against OEMs who ship 
competiting Operating Systems.
    Comment on (1): I consult for a small (Wall Street) financial 
trading company. We use Linux and OpenBSD for many of our servers 
(and have used many varieties of UNIX for many years); while our 
traders and office personnel tend to use Microsoft Office and NT/
2000 for their workstations. As Microsoft began its transition from 
NT to 2000, and now XP, we have been hampered numerous times by 
problems caused by Microsoft deliberately breaking compatibility in 
its Office Suite programs and its OSs between these versions.
    Worse yet, Microsoft claims its formats are compatible between 
versions. They're not. A Powerpoint97 document can be opened in 
Powerpoint 2000, and all the text and pages are readable--but the 
formatting is not accuately reproduced.
    As far as I could see, these compatibility problems were not 
caused because Microsoft was adding new functionality to its Office 
Suite programs or to its OS--rather, they just were attempts to 
force us to upgrade all our systems to Microsoft's latest software.
    For most of our needs, a simple (and --accurate--) file 
converter from Office97 apps to Office2000/OfficeXP apps would 
suffice. But there isn't such a thing. We don't need the new 
functionality of these later suites -- and we don't want them. But 
at the moment, we are being forced into a needlessly complex and 
expensive upgrade of our entire network in order to keep our files 
compatible with other companies.
    Forcing Microsoft to release all its file formats would break 
this cycle. While some of the Office file formats are well known--
Excel and Word, for example--the file format for Powerpoint (PPT) is 
completely undocumented. Most of our problems are with this format. 
Needless to say, since Microsoft only releases the specifications of 
this format to ``approved'' developers, it's unlikely that any 
company (or private developer) will offer a converter program to 
change Office XP presentations back to Office 97.
    Comment on (2): We would consider purchasing only Office XP, and 
not convert to Windows XP -- but the tight coupling between 
Microsoft's OS and these applications make it impossible. While I've 
looked at open source projects such as WINE (and commercial ventures 
such as CodeWeavers)--which try to let users run binary Windows apps 
on nonWindows OS (by emulating the Windows API calls)--our company 
has not used them, since we've heard from MainWin developers that 
these open source projects ``infringe'' on Microsoft's patents on 
the Windows API. Since Microsoft is not forced to release patent 
information--how can these projects know if they're in jeopardy or 
not?
    Comment on (3): Most consumers buy computers pre-installed with 
software; and don't add much software on their own. As long as they 
--only-- have the choice of pre-installed Microsoft OS and Microsoft 
Apps--or nothing--I think Microsoft's stranglehold on the industry 
will continue. This block could easily change, if OEMs offered other 
OS and applications pre-installed on their computers. Since Linux 
and the BSDs charge --no-- licensing fees for their OSs and 
applications, consumers would get the benefit of cheaper pre-
installed computers, to boot. But since under the proposed 
settlement, Microsoft is allowed to continue penalizing OEMs who 
offer non-Microsoft OS computers, OEMs have a strong disincentive to 
offer other platforms to consumers--and Microsoft's dominance will 
like continue.
    Thank you for your time; but the proposed settlement is (in my 
view) completely unacceptable.
    Norman Yamada
    [email protected]
    338 E. 13th Street, #4A
    New York, NY 10003



MTC-00015874

From: Boy Plankton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am in favor of the current settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. Personally, I am concerned that Microsoft was 
singled out for prosecution because of lobbying by it's competitors. 
I am similarly concerned that the current judgement against 
Microsoft was rendered by a judge who made no attempt to hide his 
contempt for the company.
    Your Truly,
    Vincent C. Marcus III
    830 N. 500 W. Apt. 64
    Bountiful, UT 84010



MTC-00015875

From: Cox, Phillip
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    As a long time Apple supporter, I've been fond of watching 
Microsoft play catch up in the usability department. The only 
problem is that when Microsoft embraces a standard (say kerberos in 
W2K), they then extend it with proprietary add-ons that only work 
with other Microsoft products. Other companies aren't even given the 
ability to use these so-called features. For end-users, it might not 
seem like a big deal, but when personal information is being 
cataloged at Microsoft without my knowledge or consent, that is a 
bad thing.

[[Page 26161]]

    Phillip Cox
    Mesa, AZ



MTC-00015876

From: Anthony Engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
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 Ms. Hesse, As per the Tunney Act, I am submitting my 
comments regarding the Microsoft Antitrust trial. After having read 
the proposed settlement, I am extremely concerned that it is not 
strong enough, and that it will be ineffective in countering the 
harmful business practices in which Microsoft engages. My largest 
concerns are with the overly narrow definition of APIs, middleware, 
and Windows. Important APIs have been overlooked in the narrow 
definition, such as that used by Microsoft Installer. Middleware 
such as Microsoft's new .NET initiative (and other future projects) 
are not covered. Variants of Windows (``Windows powered'') such as 
Windows CE, Tablet Edition, and the X-Box are not covered. I hope 
that you will take a close look at the problems with the proposed 
settlement, and make needed changes to it. If you do not, Microsoft 
will continue to work in essentially the same fashion.
    Thank you,
    Anthony Engel
    9 Fairfield St Apt 3R
    Cambridge, MA 02140



MTC-00015877

From: Joseph D. Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a member of the Computer Industry, and specifically a Senior 
Software Developer, I am concerned with the remedies that have been 
proposed in the Microsoft case. None of them will, in my opinion, 
have any effect in the real world and could quite possibly make 
things even worse.
    Joseph Foley



MTC-00015878

From: Oscar Merida
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial. The current proposed settlement does not fully redress the 
actions committed by Microsoft in the past, nor inhibit their 
ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Oscar Merida



MTC-00015879

From: Branson Matheson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this is a VERY bad idea..
    branson
    Branson Matheson
    Systems Consultant
    Windborne, Inc.
    ( $statements = BRANSON> ) ! /Company Opinion/;
    ``If you are falling off of a mountain, You may as well try to 
fly.''--Delenn, Minbari Ambassador



MTC-00015880

From: Gordon Fischer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) against Microsoft is 
unsatisfactory. An excellent argument explaining why the PFJ is 
unsatisfactory is available here [ http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html ]
    In particular the following points make the PFJ undesirable
    Failure to prohibit anticompetitive license terms
    Failure to prohibit anticompetitive practices towards OEMs
    Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior needs to be stopped. Strong 
measures should be taken to ensure that they will not engage in 
these business practices again. The PFJ is not enough to ensure 
compliance.
    Thank you,
    Gordon Fischer
    Austin, TX



MTC-00015881

From: Michael Dale Long
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. It has been proven in 
court that Microsoft has violated the Sherman act with it's 
monopoly, yet the current proposal takes no steps to deprive 
Microsoft of it's ill-gotten gains, and insufficient steps to 
prevent future corporate misbehaviour. I ask the court to take this 
into consideration and amend the settlement with a more appropriate 
punishment and preventative clauses. Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Long



MTC-00015882

From: Niedermeyer, Franz
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am writing in opposition to the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft antitrust case.
    The settlement as written will not serve to curtail Microsoft's 
future anticompetitive behavior, and does even less (if anything) to 
punish Microsoft for its many past violations of antitrust law.
    This proposed settlement will serve to encourage Microsoft to 
continue the illegally leveraged destruction of competition in new 
industry segments, as well as providing an incentive for other 
industries to engage in this type of behavior. I feel strongly that 
the computer industry would look vastly different and much improved 
today without the past decade of Microsoft's increasingly apparent 
anticompetitive actions. Americans would have a much larger variety 
of secure and useful software to choose from. All would be able to 
share information without the proprietary interfaces that effect a 
loss of control and ownership of one's own data.
    Finally, I believe that as Microsoft grows through 
anticompetitive behavior, the risks to Americans of corporate 
failure in a firm of such unnatural size could readily cause serious 
harm to our economy and technological infrastructure.
    Thank you,
    Franz Niedermeyer



MTC-00015883

From: Donnie Cambre
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.

[[Page 26162]]

    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Donnie Cambre
    [email protected]



MTC-00015884

From: Daniel W. Drake
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As part of the Tunney Act comment period, I feel compelled to 
inform you that the proposed settlement of the Microsoft Antitrust 
case does nothing to prevent, punish, or alter any of the points 
that Microsoft was found guilty of during the Antitrust trial. It 
does in fact merely provide Microsoft with a simple method to 
circumvent this settlement, thereby allowing them to continue to 
abuse their monopoly standing without fear of retribution or 
punishment. As an owner of a software consulting firm, and a 
developer on applications I must disagree with this proposed 
settlement, as it does nothing to curb Microsoft's behavior in the 
market place, and therefore places not only myself, but computer 
scientists and developers in the U.S. at risk as the world leader in 
computer innovation, design, development, and research. As such, and 
in addition to this letter, I have submitted myself as a co-signer 
of Dan Kegel's comments available at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
    Sincerely,
    Daniel W. Drake
    Co-Founder and Board Member of Oak Grove Software, Inc.
    Dan Drake
    Office: 919-362-1205
    Fax : 919-362-1301
    Cell : 919-656-7519
    [email protected]



MTC-00015885

From: Galler, Charles
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Not all schools need more machines running Windows. It may be 
difficult to integrate into their network.
    Charles D. Galler Jr.
    Network Specialist
    C2C Fiber, Inc.
    713.440.4106
    [email protected]



MTC-00015886

From: Laird Popkin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw
    As an engineer involved in the industry professionally for over 
a decade, I am very concerned about the proposed settlement between 
the DoJ and Microsoft. I believe that given Microsoft's historic 
disregard for legal constraints on its behavior, and even simple 
inability to acknowledge the illegality of its actions, that the 
proposed settlement will not result in any meaningful change in 
their anti-competitive conduct. In addition, the settlement does not 
appear to penalize Microsoft for their past illegal actions.
    The prohibited conduct under the agreement does not address the 
core of the illegal actions. Now that Microsoft has eliminated any 
significant competition in both the x86-based desktop operating 
system market and the web browser market, it's of little value to 
free OEM's from the illegal license terms and pricing models that 
allowed Microsoft to eliminate that competition.
    The agreement needs to penalize Microsoft for those past 
actions, but be forward looking to prevent similar illegal actions 
suppressing future illegal actions. The agreement doesn't prevent 
Microsoft from using exactly the same tactics to suppress future 
competition in future markets. For example, the Open Source movement 
is emerging as significant competition in some application markets 
(web servers, databases), and as an alternative desktop operating 
system (Linux and WINE). Microsoft is already using their control 
over licensing terms for operating system to prohibit the 
distribution of add-in components (SDK's) with open source software 
in an attempt to hinder this software model. Microsoft even makes it 
illegal to use their C++ compiler to develop software for non-
Windows operating systems, and licenses some software only for 
running under Windows, prohibiting the application's use under any 
competing operating system that has the ability to run Windows 
applications. The agreement does nothing to protect the web server 
or database markets, or the open source software movement, from 
continued (illegal, IMO) suppression. And the agreement does nothing 
to protect the ability of competitors to implement the Windows API's 
and allow users to run Windows software on competing operating 
systems.
    The agreement does not penalize Microsoft for past illegal 
actions. The agreement only addresses future actions, and does not 
asses a penalty. The wording of the agreement is so vague, with so 
many exceptions, that that it is wide open to abuse. And given that 
Microsoft historically has taken advantage of even the appearance of 
slight ambiguity extremely aggressively, it's hard to believe that 
they would not use the vagueness and exceptions to render the 
restrictions meaningless. For example, they can avoid the 
restrictions on their actions for a ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' by renaming it slightly. For example, if Microsoft shifts 
its efforts to ``Windows XP Tablet PC Edition'' (which will run 
Windows applications on desktop PC's with keyboards) then the 
restrictions become moot. As another example, the requirement that 
Microsoft publish all API's has the exception that any API can be 
hidden by Microsoft if the claim that the API relates to security; 
this is trivial to argue if Microsoft incorporates basic security 
mechanisms into any API that they wish to keep secret for other 
reasons.
    The term of the agreement, and the lack of enforcement 
mechanisms, renders it meaningless. Since the agreement is of such 
limited duration, and violating it has no impact other than a short 
extension, it will have no significant effect on Microsoft's 
behavior, and even if it does for the duration of the agreement, 
that period is too short a time for competitors to come into place 
and achieve meaningful market presence.
    Finally, I believe that leaving Microsoft structurally 
unchanged, with an oversight committee, cannot result in a 
fundamental shift in Microsoft's hostile attitude towards fair 
competition in the marketplace because it cannot have the visibility 
into the wide range of Microsoft's activities, nor does it have 
enforcement mechanisms sufficient to compel Microsoft to comply with 
its rulings; quite simply, given the scale and profitability of 
Microsoft's business, minor changes in contractual wording aren't 
gong to meaningfully change the company's direction.
    I believe that the only mechanism that can change Microsoft's 
behavior is to make a separation of the company in which the self-
interest of the resulting companies leads to increased competition. 
The fundamental issue is that there is only a single company that 
controls the operating system required all participants in the PC 
industry, and that company does not believe that it has to compete 
fairly in new markets. Given that Microsoft has consistently 
rejected attempts to moderate its behavior, I believe that the only 
remaining options are either to create multiple competing companies 
in the operating system business, or to strengthen the agreement 
sufficiently to force Microsoft to behave legally.

STRENGTHENING THE AGREEMENT

    I believe that the central need here is to make the Windows 
API's a completely public document that all participants 
(Microsoft's operating system team, competing operating system 
vendors, Microsoft's applications teams, competing application 
vendors) have equal access to, and against which compliance is 
independently assured. The documentation of the API, and validation 
of compliance to it, should be managed by an independent third-
party. The agreement would need to draw a clear line between 
operating system, middleware and applications, and restrict 
communications between the layers to confirm to publicly documented 
API's.
    Similarly, communication between the operating systems, 
middleware and applications teams within Microsoft must be 
restricted so that internal teams are treated on an equal footing 
with external competitors. For example, whenever the MS Office team 
needs to discuss an API enhancement with the Windows XP team, it 
must also discuss that API requirement with the WINE team or any 
other competing Windows API implementor. For simplicity, it may be 
better for all API-related communications to be coordinated by an 
independent third party (e.g. the organization administering the 
Windows API, for example) to which all participants have equal 
access. Integration between layers would only be allowed through 
publicly documented API's, validated by the independent third 
party--there would be no ``private'' communication channels between 
the layers.

[[Page 26163]]

    The agreement would apply to any version of any operating system 
shipped by Microsoft, under any name.
    The agreement would have no termination. Violation of the 
agreement could be penalized by up to 10% of Microsoft's revenue for 
the duration of the time during which Microsoft is found not to be 
in compliance.
    The agreement would guarantee the right to produce and 
distribute competing implementations of the Windows API's. Microsoft 
would be prohibited from implemented code in operating system (e.g. 
Windows XP), operating system add-in components (e.g. Windows Media 
Player) or their applications (e.g. MS Office) that attempts to 
determine whether it is running over a Microsoft or a competing 
implementation of the API, would have no dependencies on 
implementation details of Microsoft's implementations of the API's, 
and would make a good faith effort to ensure that such add-ons and 
applications would operate properly over any implementations of 
those API's. Microsoft would waive all intellectual property rights 
that would otherwise affect the ability of third parties to 
implement the API's.

MULTIPLE WINDOWS COMPANIES

    In this option, I would propose forming three companies, all 
with equal rights to all current Microsoft intellectual property 
(patents, source



MTC-00015887

From: Lora Friedenthal
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The main purpose of the suit against Microsoft seemed, to me, to 
be about bundling. Yet, the settlement reached does nothing about 
this, Microsoft's most powerful method to crush competition. 
WindowsXP has more bundled software than any other Windows release. 
They make their instant messenger seem like it is part of the 
operating system. Their browser already feels that it is. Windows 
has the OS market, there's little chance that that will change, but 
by bundling every possible internet related application into the 
operating system, they stamp out any competition. The applications 
force themselves on the user, and if you sign up for one, you've 
magically got accounts everywhere. Internet related applications was 
quite possibly the only software market aside from games that 
Microsoft didn't already dominate, and now they dominate that as 
well. The real solution, it seemed to me, would have been to break 
the company into three different companies and make for some real 
competition out there. Let one part make the operating system, one 
make the business applications, and one deal with MSN and it's 
related internet applications. While I could see including IE with 
the system so that people could go out and find other software, it's 
the bundling of everything at once that seals the doom of everything 
without an MS logo. I was hoping for some drastic and harsh 
treatment of a company that tries in everyway to squash its 
competition, including underhanded and illegal means, and I just 
don't think this settlement goes far enough.
    Lora Friedenthal
    86 Welisewitz Rd
    Ringoes, NJ 08551



MTC-00015888

From: HOUK, LESLIE B. (JSC-ER) (ESI)
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 1/23/02  10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. I 
believe that the settlement is inadequate on a number of issues:
    1. It doesn't take into account Windows-compatible operating 
systems.
    2. It contains misleading and overly-narrow provisions and 
definitions.
    3. It fails to prohibit anti-competitive license terms currently 
in use by Microsoft.
    4. It fails to prohibit intentional incompatibilities 
historically used by Microsoft.
    5. It fails to prohibit anti-competitive practices towards OEMs. 
Because of these inadequecies, the proposed Final Judgement as 
written allows and encourages significant anti-competitive practices 
to continue, delays the emergence of competing Windows-compatible 
operating systems, and is thus not in the public interest. It should 
not be adopted without substantial revision to address these 
problems.
    Thank you.



MTC-00015889

From: Rich Pieri
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This short note is to inform you that I believe that the 
proposed final judgement in the US DoJ v Microsoft case is a bad 
idea. Among its many problems, the PFJ fails to punnish Microsoft 
for its actions, it lacks an effective mechanism of enforcement, and 
due to imprecise or excessively narrow wording it actively 
encourages Microsoft to further its monopolistic practices.
    Signed, Richard L. Pieri; Holbrook, MA; Systems Administrator.
    Rich Pieri [email protected]>
    Unix Systems Administrator
    InterSystems Corporation
    CC:Rich Pieri



MTC-00015890

From: Kalin Fetvadjiev
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This is a mail to note that I personally do not feel that the 
proposed Microsoft settlement is the one that actually would stop 
Microsoft from abusing the companies monopolly.
    Regards,
    Kalin Fetvadjiev



MTC-00015891

From: Chris Louden
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand this is the address to send comments on the 
Microsoft Settlement. Here's my comment: The settlement is an 
embarrassment to our country. At what point to the rule of law 
become so trivial? How can a company that so egregiously broke so 
many laws be let off so easy? I suspect somebody did a poll, but 
that doesn't seem right.



MTC-00015892

From: Birl W. Worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft, its Officers and Directors need to be punished for 
their crime. They are criminals just as are bank robbers.
    Birl W. Worley, Jr.



MTC-00015893

From: michael
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00015894

From: Shawn Campbell
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: microsoft antitrust trial remedy.
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I am a concerned citizen and information technology 
professional. I am writing to express my opinion that the proposed 
settlement is inadequate. I have included a url at the end of this 
email to an essay which expresses many of my reasons for holding to 
my opinion on the matter. Although I did not write the essay, I have 
read the essay in it's entirety and I agree with the analysis 
presented in the essay. I have communicated to the author of the 
essay my desire to be a cosigner of the essay when it is transmitted 
to the department of justice. This email is evidence of that 
intention. Thank you for your time and attention to this email.
    The url for the essay is:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Cordially,
    Shawn Campbell
    Student Network Administrator
    Malone College



MTC-00015895

From: Wade Winright
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement To whom it will concern,
    I believe that the settlement against Microsoft should be an 
agreement that will somehow allow the markets that they participate 
in to ``catch-up'' to the appropriate shares they deserve in order 
to compete with the monopolistic giant Microsoft has made 
themselves.
    Thank you for your time,
    Wade Winright
    P.O. Box 1687
    Sandpoint ID
    83864



MTC-00015896

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26164]]

    I would like to register my objection to the proposed settlement 
in the United States vs. Microsoft case.
    The biggest problem I see is that the settlement is not a 
structural remedy. Oversight remedies have been tried against 
Microsoft in the past, and they have coded arounded them, lobbied 
over them, and legally maneuvered past them every time. The only 
thing that hasn't been tried yet, and that has a hope of working, is 
to break them up.
    Breaking Microsoft up into OS/Applications/Other divisions 
wouldn't break their monopoly, but it would make it more difficult 
for them to use their OS monopoly to create new monopolies in other 
areas, which they are doing with Windows XP even as I type this.
    Robert Bane
    Global Science & Technology
    6411 Ivy Lane, Suite 300
    Greenbelt MD 20770
    301-474-9696 FAX:301-474-5970



MTC-00015897

From: Brandon R. Butler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear sirs:
    I am writing this to express my opposition to the proposed 
settlement to the Microsoft antitrust suit.
    As a computer professional, this issue is one that is very 
important to me both personally and professionally. It is my opinion 
that the proposed settlement does not do enough to thwart 
Microsoft's unfair business practices or to ensure fair competition 
in the marketplace. As the situation exists now, Microsoft has been 
utilizing their monopoly in operating systems to unfairly gain 
control of other markets, such as Internet browsing, instant 
messaging, and digital audio. This is the situation that a 
reasonable settlement must address, and I do not believe the current 
proposed settlement has any real power to restrict Microsoft's 
illegal actions in this area. In order to be effective, a solution 
must prevent Microsoft from tying (or ``bundling'') unrelated 
software into their operating systems; this is the only way to 
ensure that all competing products, including Microsoft's, have an 
opportunity are evaluated fairly by a competitive market on the 
merits of the products themselves. The current settlement has no 
real power to do this, and thus will be ineffective in correcting 
Microsoft's illegal practices.
    I am not opposed to Microsoft; anybody who wishes to use 
Microsoft products should have the free choice to do so, as is 
proper in a free nation. However, the problem is that people who 
choose to use non-Microsoft products are severely limited in their 
options because Microsoft uses illegal tactics to stifle 
competition. The day that one person can run a fully function system 
using Microsoft technology, and another person can run an equally 
functional system using no Microsoft technology at all, will be the 
day that this suit is settled adequately--not before.
    Sincerely,
    Brandon R. Butler
    Ridgeland, MS



MTC-00015898

From: Randy Smothers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have been a information systems developer, software programmer 
and software user for more than 25 years. Based on my experience and 
my reading of the ``Proposed Final Judgement'' (PFJ) in United 
States vs. Microsoft, I am concerned that the PFJ is significantly 
flawed and insufficient to correct existing monopolistic practices 
on the part of Microsoft, let alone deter the continuation of such 
practices in the future.
    In particular, I am concerned that the PFJ does not correctly 
define the terms ``API'' and ``Microsoft Middleware'' and therefore 
fails to implement protections against Microsoft's continued use of 
the Windows APIs to maintain or even increase the ``Applications 
Barrier to Entry'' cited by the Trial and Appeals courts.
    Through arbitrary, capricious and often unannounced changes in 
the Windos APIs and by withholding the full documentation of many 
Windows APIs and any documentation at all of others, Microsoft has 
long been able to suppress efforts by other software developers to 
create applications software that is competitive with software 
offered by Microsoft in terms of features and/or performance.
    Similarly, by not having to clearly and publicly identify the 
patents applicable to its Windows APIs, Microsoft is able to use 
vague threats of ``patent infringement'' to inhibit the development 
and adoption of competing applications.
    Having been successful at ensuring the Windows operating system 
is ubiquitously present in homes, educational institutions, 
businesses and government offices throughout the USA and much of the 
rest of the world, Microsoft has shown no reluctance to use that 
presence to monopolistic advantage whenever it has decided to offer 
its own product in any area of computing applications. Absent 
meaningful provisions forcing Microsoft to provide equal and fair 
access to the Windows APIs, the Proposed Final Judgement fails to 
adequately address the issue of Microsoft's enhanced Applications 
Barrier to Entry and as a result also fails to serve the interests 
of the public through enhancement of the competitive environment for 
software in the Intel-based computer industry.
    Ernest R. Smothers
    Note: The opinion(s) or view(s) expressed above are my own and 
are not intended to represent those of my employer.



MTC-00015899

From: Michael Roberts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Please register my objection to the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. The Proposed Final Judgment has already been made 
obsolete by the fast-moving computer market. The settlement omits 
Windows operating systems on PDAs, or gaming platforms such as MS 
XBox, which will undoubtedly provide fertile fields for Microsoft to 
further leverage its monopoly. Even now, Microsoft is harrassing 
Lindows.com, a Windows-compatible operating system. There is no 
evidence whatsoever that Microsoft has learned its lesson, or has 
any intention of refraining from the illegal activities it has 
engaged in in the past. Please revise the settlement to include 
*all* of the market segments that Microsoft's monopoly touches, not 
just the segments where the competition is already dead.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Roberts, CTO
    MyPrintGuys, Inc.



MTC-00015900

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    LET S STOP THE LITIGATION AND RESUME BUSINESS THE GOVERMENT WAS 
WRONG TO BRING THIS CASE TO COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE.



MTC-00015901

From: W.A. Collier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    The proposed settlement is a bad one; please reject it and have 
the DoJ and the states go back and draft something that will address 
the facts found in the District court case.
    A unanimous US Court of Appeals agreed that Microsoft had 
illegally kept its monopoly position by preying on other software 
developers and computer manufacturers. The bottom line is that 
Microsoft operated illegally, and any settlement or resolution of 
this case should make sure the company cannot continue its 
anticompetitive behavior. Unfortunately the proposed solution does 
not do this. In many ways, it actually reinforces Microsoft's 
monopoly, and does nothing to restrain Microsoft from acting 
illegally again in future markets.
    Indeed, Microsoft has already shown they intend to continue to 
piggyback off their illegally obtained operating system monopoly to 
crush more markets. As an example, look at the ``give away'' of 
millions of dollars of development effort in their Media Player, 
which is unnecessarily ``integrated'' into WindowsXP--and is 
targeted at the RealPlayer product line, in order to crush it, in 
the same way they did the Netscape Browser. Microsoft, unlike its 
competitors, simply rolls the development cost into their illegally 
obtained monopoly operating system, and undercuts the competition 
unfairly. Yet the proposed settlement does not address preventing 
this sort of monopolistic behavior at all. Remember, developing a 
media player, a browser and other software costs money, and 
Microsoft leverages their monopoly to mask these costs while 
smashing competition unfairly. The Circuit court in it s 7-0 
decision, and lower courts found this ``bundling'' illegal and

[[Page 26165]]

monopolistic, yet the settlement does not address this in any sort 
of meaningful fashion: it allows Microsoft to tightly integrate and 
bundle its media player, its web browser, and myriad other 
applications into the Windows Operating System, instead of competing 
freely against external applications.
    Also, the proposed settlement contains no provisions to remedy 
the unlawful monopolization of the operating system; nothing that 
will produce competition. Remember that the Circuit court ordered 
that a remedy must ``unfetter the market from anticompetitive 
conduct... [and] .. terminate the illegal monopoly''. the proposed 
settlement does nothing of the sort. Its attempt to open the ``API'' 
(programming interface) of the Windows operating system will merely 
reinforce the monopoly, not terminate it as the court called for. 
Also opening the API is not enough: Microsoft plans only to open a 
mere a subset. Complete and full disclosure of ALL the source-code 
is the only ``opening'' that would suffice to terminate the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    Finally, the proposed settlement does nothing at all to address 
the issue of effective remedy along side enforcement. the proposed 
penalties are ludicrous--an extension of terms that they have 
already violated is hardly a punishment. Fiduciary penalties must be 
applied, as well as structural ones. Also, the solutions proposed 
for ``competition'' are heavily dependent upon Original Equipment 
Manufacturers for implementation--the same OEMs who are partners and 
part of Microsoft's business plans (Such as Dell and Compaq).
    In sum, this settlement is wholly inadequate, and should be 
rejected and the DoJ and the States should be directed to follow the 
rulings of the Circuit Court and lower courts when crafting a 
settlement, instead of ignoring the findings of fact and law, and 
currying favor with an unrepentant lawbreaking monopolist.
    Regards,
    Winston A. Collier
    16731 E Iliff Ave #166
    Aurora, CO 80013
    303-215-6062
    [email protected]



MTC-00015902

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge;
    Please ensure that the rule of law extends even to the richest 
and most powerful in our great country.
    Even in the past few months, as the DoJ has essentially let 
Microsoft entirely off the hook, they have begun to exercise their 
monopoly powers in a way that is actually scary (have you seen the 
new XP release and the Passport junk that you just cannot get away 
from therein???).
    The entire US software industry is depending on you.
    Thank you.
    Chris Kellerman
    Software Engineer
    2197 E. Bayshore
    Palo Alto, CA
    94303



MTC-00015903

From: Gabriel Black
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. The proposed settlement 
is a slap on the wrist. Microsoft should be punished severly! We 
need competition in the marketplace and Microsoft stifles 
innovation.
    A1C Gabriel Black
    United States Air Force



MTC-00015904

From: Philip Balister
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reviewing the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement, I 
believe it does little to remedy the problems created in the 
marketplace by Microsoft prior actions. I believe that it should be 
much stronger with respect to preventing Microsoft from continuing 
to use anti- competitive practices. I would suggest a very simple, 
very direct solution in order to prevent continuing evasive behavior 
by Microsoft.
    Philip Balister



MTC-00015905

From: Chris Freemesser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi there.
    I don't believe that the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust case will prevent Microsoft from continuing their illegal 
practices. If the agreement was powerful enough to do this, you 
wouldn't have so many states disagreeing with the proposed 
settlement.
    Thanks,
    Chris Freemesser



MTC-00015906

From: Scott Clausnitzer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to comment on the proposed Microsoft Settlement.
    Microsoft should not receive just a slap on the wrist. This 
company made billions of dollars through illegal acts. Unless the 
penalties are greater than their illegally gotten profits, large 
monopolistic corporations will see the courts and the anti-trust 
laws as just another tool to earn money.
    If the final outcome of the settlement allows Microsoft to 
retain even a single dollar earned through illegal activities, then 
the court system could be seen as partnering with the monopoly in 
order to allow these activities to remain profitable. Don't put on a 
show, don't claim false or hollow victories. Send a message, teach a 
lesson, punish the guilty.
    Scott A. Clausnitzer
    via e-mail
    [email protected]



MTC-00015907

From: Jason W. Strnad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renta B. Hesse,
    Since the beginning of this most recent case against Microsofts 
antitrust actions, I have watched and read with interest reports and 
documents which have been made available to the public. I have read 
the findings of fact, and the various proposed final judgements, in 
addition to the many other documents which have been published or 
released by the courts. I have considered these documents against my 
own personal and professional experiences with Microsoft and the 
rest of the technical sector. It is, after consideration of all of 
the above, my decided and educated opinion that of all of the PFJ's 
offered to the court, none of them will entirely do justice to the 
crimes that Microsoft has committed. Nor will any of the PFJ's 
remedy the situation by creating a fair and level playing field for 
real competition against Microsoft.
    Having said that, of the options being presented to the court, 
the PFJ being presented by the nine dissenting states seems the best 
place to start. Also deserving consideration is how to protect 
competitors who implement software applications and operating 
systems which are compatible with Microsofts current and previous 
offerings. This point is keenly important as Microsoft has a proven 
track record of protecting its monopoly through aggressive actions 
designed specifically to root out and destroy the marketplace in 
which potential competitors do business. I feel this matter needs 
specific consideration so as to allow competition to develop and 
thrive without reducing potential competitors to welfare recipients 
dependent on entitlements granted to them by the court.
    The effect of this decision and final judgement should not be to 
give competition a one time ``shot in the arm'' but to create a 
lasting and level playing field which would allow competition to 
come about naturally and to prevent Microsoft from taking predatory 
and unlawful actions to protect their monopoly and destroy 
competition before it takes root.
    Thank you for your time.
    Jason W. Strnad
    [email protected]



MTC-00015908

From: Grozdits Gregory G 1stLt AFRL/IFGD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: concern with the current motion of the suit
    Good day,
    First let me point out that these comments are, of course, in no 
way an official representation of Deparment of the Air Force 
doctrine or opinion. With the frequent travel invovled in my career, 
this is the first time I've had internet access and time to write 
about my thoughts.
    Every time I've read recent comments about the DOJ's case 
against MicroSoft I've been disheartened. Most of what I have to 
say, I hope, will be said by others with better

[[Page 26166]]

experience in the law and more concern for economics.
    My experience with Microsoft has led me to believe that 
Microsoft employees are highly intelligent, extremely motivated and 
very foresighted. They design a decent product, but the company 
itself has become so overpowering that it is hurting the US and her 
technological development.
    One example of their malfeasance is their listing of the Dynamic 
Linked Libraries required for internet connections in their list of 
files to be removed when uninstalling Internet Explorer. I was very 
dismayed when the whole system that I wrote, while trying to use 
only Java to keep the software platform independent, broke simply 
because I removed Internet Explorer at the request of my Security 
Officer.
    Developing code for a client/server project that was to be 
independent of Operating System, and which I tried to steer clear of 
OS specific calls, you can imagine my frustration. On the other 
hand, it was a brilliant business move.
    We all know the effects that Microsoft had on Netscape and 
Corel's WordPerfect. Still among the die-hard researchers that I 
work with at various institutions from MIT to Sandia, most have a 
copy of Word-Perfect that we use for serious correspondence (using 
LaTeX for photographic ready work), only using a copy of MS Word to 
read the documents that are sent out by various agencies. I wish 
that all of them had time to share their feeling on the innovation 
stifeld by the Microsoft corporation. A second example I have is of 
a friend doing what I thought to be quality speech recognition 
research. MS approached him to back his research, with the condition 
that he couldn't publish without their approval. Though it would 
have been interesting to speak with a lawyer about their offer; that 
offer was immediately untennable.
    I apologize that I did not have time to argue more cogently, but 
my life is kept quite busy these days. My summary is that I have 
seen MS move to stifle competition in a way that I hope to practice 
as a member of the military against those who would stand against my 
country. However, I can't imagine that such use of force is fair or 
just in the world of business. We keep America safe because it 
allows those with new ideas to grow. I've heard of a few problems 
that hurts those I work with:
    A simulator that veers uncontrollably because MS NT crashes the 
idea to hand Marine's Windows CE forward fire control units that 
have frequent fatal execution faults when interfacing with the man-
pack radios, because MS wouldn't provide the code for their OS and 
the current DoD mandate is to use as much commercial off the shelf 
software as possible I believe that our country have been held back 
by the practices of MS. The technology that I've seen as a member of 
the Air Force Research Laboratory has some amazing applications, but 
most of those that run on MS are effete in some way because of their 
OS. Other OS's have a plethora of capabilities, but since the 
procrument process dictates using COTS and ``Current civilian 
practices,'' we have weakened our defense. That's why we have the 
DOJ and it's anti-trust division. I wish you the best in your 
arduous task. In my opinion, MS needs to be reined in. Less of a 
monopoly on software would make a market that had more innovation 
and I see benefit in that because it helps me do my job.
    Thank you for your time,
    Lt. Greg Grozdits
    Platform Connectivity Branch DSN: 785-4947 x3402Information 
Directorate A/C EC-135E 60-0372Air Force Research Laboratory
    Personal comments and opinions contained herein are not advice 
or doctrine of the USAF, the Department of the Air Force or the 
Deparment of Defense.



MTC-00015909

From: Ed Saipetch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I am writing to tell you that I disagree with the Microsoft 
settlement terms.
    I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement in United Stats vs. 
Microsoft is shortsighted and overly broad in many of the 
limitations set for Microsoft. Microsoft has been known for it's 
``Embrace and Extend'' philosophy and some of the clauses in the 
judgement will allow them to do that again.
    The proposed judgement applies to ``Windows'', however it does 
not define products that Microsoft is developing that may extend 
their monopoly such as Windows CE, Pocket PC, or their X-Box 
platform.
    Also the settlement states that it requires API documentation 
however competitors are not allowed to use it to help make their 
operationg systems compatible with Windows.
    These clauses just show how loopholes have been created within 
the settlement that allows Microsoft to escape its grasps with 
technicalities. To level the playing field with their competitors, 
Microsoft should be required to publish a complete documentation of 
all their Windows (*and related products) API's. This does not allow 
people to steal their technology but to *interface* into it so they 
can develop products for Windows. What is going to stop them from 
having API's that have been performance-crippled and API's that only 
they use which aren't?
    Another suggestion mentioned by the GNU organization is allowing 
them to only use patents for defense. Even if they are allowed to 
release specifications on their products, what is going to keep them 
from going after companies for developing things remotely like their 
products. Right now Embrace & Extend has kept them ahead but if they 
are not allowed to use this tactic against competitors, what's going 
to stop them from suing them?
    One last comment... It seems that section III(J)(2) contains 
statements that are pinned against not-for-profit organizations. 
According to that section it isn't necessary for them to describe, 
license, document API's and protocols affecting authentication or 
authorization to companies that don't meet Microsoft's standards as 
a business. I don't understand how Microsoft is able to determine 
that criteria... It appears that their own standards of running a 
business counter that of the U.S. government's.
    They seem to constantly be saying that Linux is a threat to them 
as well as Open Source projects in general, this allows them to not 
give their API's for authentication away to a competitor.
    This mail may not mean much but hopefully someone will 
understand just as Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson did, that Microsoft 
interested in their own best interests, not the public's. The 
company has been permitted to stifle innovation and contribute to 
competitors demise.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Ed Saipetch
    Indianapolis, IN



MTC-00015910

From: yanez
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a computer user and owner of a small business, I believe 
Microsoft should not be allowed to supply software to public schools 
as a means of settlement. This would obviously proliferate their 
monopoly, and further stifle competition in the computer OS market.
    There monopoly causes problems for my business and me 
personally. Because of the Microsoft monopoly, there is a lack of 
consideration for other operating software and platforms. Security 
holes, breaches of computers can all be attributed to the 
proliferation of Microsofts operating system.
    If a software monopoly can thrive in a digital age, then there 
will be more digital attacks. Because of Microsofts monopoly, a 
single computer user can literally shut down the entire internet 
with viruses aimed at one operating system.
    Their gateways within the Internet specifically the Microsoft 
exchange hinders sending email attachments. Further more, they have 
been able to proliferate their Operating System by NOT shutting down 
software piracy. If the company was willing to stop piracy as they 
say, then there OS would not be able to become a the monopoly they 
seek.
    Piracy will only become an issue once they have 100% market 
share and control of all gateways and access to the internet not 
allowing others access. Once 100% market saturation occurs, they can 
shift to a business model that requires users to pay for their own 
data by locking out users who do not wish to subscribe and upgrade 
to their Operating System.
    If the Justice Department is informed as they think, then the 
break up of Microsoft as Jackson had determined is the right 
solution.



MTC-00015911

From: Steve Sherwick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    This message is intended to convey my concerns with the proposed 
settlement between the US and Microsoft. As a

[[Page 26167]]

computer professional of 30 years experience I am simply appalled by 
this proposed agreement. I have watched Microsoft stomp on their 
competition with abandon through that period and to see a party 
found guilty by the courts of the United States be allowed to 
essentially walk free is disheartening.
    I find the proposed settlement to be an inadequate penalty for 
the depths of injustice foisted on the american populace by 
Microsoft as proven by the findings of fact during the trial. First, 
the monetary penalties for a company are minimal and frankly non-
existent.
    Second, the restraint of their use of their monopoly power is 
inadequate, you might as well have told them to ``go and sin 
again''. Third, there is no provisions to restrain Microsoft from 
targeting the Open Source Software community for elimination using 
the same techniques used against Novell, Netscape and others. There 
are MANY other concerns but I'm sure most have been brought to light 
by others.
    In my opinion, this proposed agreement is bad law, bad for the 
american consumer and pretty well written by Microsoft to their own 
ends.
    Best Regards,
    Steven P. Sherwick
    3937 Williston Road
    Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345



MTC-00015912

From: the dogs of war
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please revise the proposed Microsoft settlement to be harder on 
Microsoft. As it stands, this settlement will not succeed in 
bringing equity to the marketplace.
    Microsoft does not deserve any special leniency. Please consider 
this email as a strong vote against Microsoft. They have flaunted 
the law long enough. Don't let them get away with their behavior any 
longer.
    P.S. Microsoft has faked grassroots movements in the past in 
order to sway opinion to serve their cause, please seriously 
consider this possibility when reading the letters you receive.



MTC-00015913

From: Mark Hessman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly against the proposed settlement. I have witnessed 
Microsoft's anticompetitive tendencies firsthand (they blatantly 
absorbed business and technical ideas from a project my former 
company--now defunct--demo'ed to them in hopes of enlisting their 
support) and I suspect that the settlement will actually help them 
rather than hurt them. For one thing, the language that forces 
Microsoft to share their APIs and the Windows-desktop real estate 
includes qualifiers limiting this provision to companies of a 
certain size, or with a viable business model--language that 
Microsoft is probably gleeful about, as it gives them license to 
ignore the grassroots, open-source projects that are currently the 
only real challenge to its PC monopolies.
    The civil suit remedy--Microsoft donating millions in computers 
and software to US schools--represents, if anything, a Br'er Rabbit 
(``oh please don't throw me in the briar patch'') type of ``remedy'. 
The education market is one which Microsoft has had the most 
difficulties in establishing its monopoly; it's also one of the most 
potentially promising, as kids who learn to use computers via 
Microsoft products will be a major source of revenue for Microsoft 
in the future and the present (as their parents, and later they, buy 
home machines that they're comfortable using). Further, copies of 
existing software cost Microsoft close to nothing, so this doesn't 
even function as a fine.
    Also, the remedy says nothing restricting Microsoft's practices 
in markets other than the OS and the browser. Windows XP finds 
Microsoft tying more products to the operating system and actively 
discouraging the use of competitors (permitting the ``ripping'' of 
music to data files at high fidelity only if the destination format 
is Microsoft's own). And finally, the three-member panel tasked to 
confirm that Microsoft is complying with the remedy has very little 
power. If Microsoft is not complying, there's nothing they can do.
    I remember when Microsoft was one company among many, when 
Windows was one of several graphical user environments on the market 
and Office was one of several office suites. The pace of innovation 
then--only a decade ago-- was far faster than it is now, despite the 
fact that raw computer power has been increasing equally fast (or 
even faster) recently. There has been some truly innovative work 
being done on the fringes of the industry (look at BeOS for 
example)--and the reason that these ideas remain on the fringes is 
Microsoft.
    Mark Hessman
    Madison, WI
    [Disclaimer: this email represents my views, not necessarily my 
employer's.]



MTC-00015914

From: Ryan Calder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to take advantage of the Tunney Act provision for public 
comment regarding the Microsoft case.
    I am a systems programmer/analyst in Kansas City, Missouri, 
working with Java, Oracle, and a wide range of open source database 
products in a variety of UNIX environments, ranging from GNU/Linux 
to Solaris to BSD and Mac OS X. Since I work in a midwestern market 
significantly dominated by Microsoft technologies, I am regularly 
impacted by Microsoft, their products, and their business practices. 
Based on my experience in the Microsoft-dominated Kansas City 
market, it is my position that the proposed final judgment falls far 
short of a remedy to the Microsoft antitrust problem. For many 
reasons, it is important that Microsoft's behavior be controlled 
more adequately than is provided in the proposed final judgment. 
Microsoft must not be allowed to engage in anticompetitive licensing 
practices with enterprise customers.
    --Microsoft must not be allowed to engage in anticompetitve 
licensing practices with US governmental agencies or other non-
profit organizations.
    --Microsoft must not be allowed to engage in anticompetitve 
licensing practices with individual consumers.
    --Microsoft must be required to publish the specifications of 
any new non-standard networking protocols they plan to incorporate 
into their operating systems.
    --Microsoft must be required to publish the specifications of 
their common file formats. i.e. Word, Excel, etc.
    --Microsoft must be required to comply with published standards 
for file formats such as HTML when labeling files as files of that 
standard file type.
    --Microsoft must be forbidden from ``bundling'' into their 
operating systems any functionality currently provided by third-
party software packages. i.e. digital photography, security, 
streaming media, etc.
    --Microsoft must not be allowed to use any antitrust remedy to 
strengthen their monopolistic position. For example, the free 
distribution of their product, or of hardware intended to use their 
product, should not be part of any final settlement.
    --License agreements between Microsoft and end users which serve 
anticompetitive purposes must be terminated and replaced with more 
appropriate licenses.
    --No US government agency should accept advertising or ``free'' 
giveaway displays unless the interests of competing parties are 
available and displayed in an equitable manner. For example, the 
current XP displays in US Post Offices are outrageous, and should be 
removed.
    Thank-you for your consideration of this matter.
    Ryan Calder
    Kansas City, Missouri
    [email protected]



MTC-00015915

From: Ben Farley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft Settlement is a travesty! To allow a corporation 
that has so quintisentially used abusive and illegal practices in 
the software market would be a sin. The Product that Microsoft has 
provided in its nearly death grip hold on the market share for home 
Operating Systems is disgustingly buggy and broken. If a sufficient 
penalty is not placed on Microsoft than alternative Operating 
Systems that are more secure such as Linux will not be allowed to 
flourish.



MTC-00015916

From: Bruce Stephenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I would like to state my opinion that the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft antitrust litigation is farcical, and would serve no 
purpose except to buttress the monopoly position that Microsoft has 
already built. If Microsoft manages to escape with

[[Page 26168]]

this settlement, the U.S. government will look ridiculous in the 
eyes of the world.
    Regards,
    Bruce Stephenson
    Bruce Stephenson, [email protected]
    Curator, History of Astronomy
    Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum
    +1 312-322-0820 (voice)
    +1 312-341-9935 (fax)
    *** Opinions expressed do not represent official
    *** positions of the Adler Planetarium.



MTC-00015917

From: Dusty Jones
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed judgment in the Microsoft antitrust case is flawed. 
Microsoft has been found guilty of using anti-competitive behaviors 
to advance its monopoly and should be dealt with appropriately. The 
settlement as proposed does not deal with Microsoft's past behavior 
and will not curtail future aggressive monopolistic behavior.
    Though I believe the settlement is flawed in other areas, I will 
focus my comments on the requirements that Microsoft document its 
middleware. My main argument with this requirement is that file 
formats used by Microsoft remain undocumented. Microsoft has a 
monopoly in operating systems and office suites. By forcing 
Microsoft to document file formats, there will be more competition 
in the marketplace. There exist products which compete with 
Microsoft Office, these include Sun's StarOffice, AbiWord, and 
Gnome's Gnumeric. These products can not truly compete until they 
are able to exchange documents with Microsoft applications. As the 
judgment stands Microsoft can modify file formats with every version 
release (as they have in the past) forcing competitors to 
continuously play the catch-up game.
    Now is the time to level the playing field. The court has the 
ability to force Microsoft to make reparations for its past 
monopolistic behavior. The nine state's Attorneys General have done 
a disservice to the people of America, and the software companies 
that have been harmed by Microsoft's behavior in the past and those 
that will be harmed by Microsoft's behavior in the future. Please 
revise the settlement to truly change Microsoft's aggressive 
monopolistic practices.
    Thank you,
    d.
    Dusty Jones
    Concerned American Citizen
    Round Rock, Texas 78664



MTC-00015918

From: Jon C
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement is not restrictive 
enough. There are too many loop holes that fail to prohibit 
Anticompetitive practices against OEMs, large user groups 
(Enterprises), and Windows-compatible competing operating systems. 
As one small example of the many missing pieces I propose an 
amendment:
    III. A. 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a 
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System, OR (C) 
INCLUDES A NON-MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM BUT NO WINDOWS OPERATING 
SYSTEM PRODUCT; or The amendment in all CAPS would prohibit 
anticompetitive practices against OEMs who distribute non-Microsoft 
operating systems.
    The Proposed Final Judgement is merely a slap on the wrist to 
Microsoft and allows them many avenues to continue their illegal 
Anticompetitive practices. Microsoft is now a convicted Monopolist 
and strict rules must be placed on them to prohibit any further 
Monopolistic/Anticompetitive practices.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Covin
    Software Engineer
    Fairfax, Virginia



MTC-00015919

From: eyebum
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Chris Sexton. I am a US resident. I am not employed 
by Microsoft or any of its competition. I want to independantly add 
my voice on the Microsoft Antitrust settlement decision. I think 
that the court decision should comprise a suitable punishment for 
Microsoft's demonstrated past and continuing behaviour, and serve as 
an effective deterant against continued anti-trust abuses by the 
company. It should be harsh, reflective of the abandonment of law 
that Microsoft has demonstrated.
    According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies decree in 
an antitrust case must seek to ``unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct'', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny 
to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure 
that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in 
the future'' (section V.D., p. 99). I believe in free and fair 
trade. If Microsoft truly had a superior product offering that they 
offered to the public via competition alone, I would hope for market 
domination.
    Yet Microsoft has not only ignored the rules of fair trade, when 
they are asked to provide a settlement on the issue, they offer up a 
farce that extends their monopoly, while preying on the idea that 
they are enabling and assisting the disenfranchised. Suddenly the 
government is a bad guy when they deny Microsoft their custom, 
swanky ``briar patch''. Though I am often critical and even cynical 
when it comes to the government, I am hopeful that the court will 
see fit to come down hard on Microsoft. The implications of the 
computer and the internet have already changed our lives, and will 
do so in increasingly bigger ways in the future. To allow one 
company to control this through its illegal behaviour is simply not 
acceptable.
    The computer industry is one which changes daily-innovations and 
new technology are ever forthcoming at a rate which is nearly 
incomprehensible compared to a legal proceeding. Microsoft would 
further line its coffers with its unlawful practices while delaying 
the outcome of this case, no matter what.
    There are many problems with the Proposed Final Judgement in its 
current form. In regards to competition, the document is lacking in 
many fundamental areas. These areas are nothing unique to the 
Microsfot situation, it is the way the rest of the computer industry 
operates and interacts. Some of these problems are:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements. Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' 
seven months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware simply by changing the 
requirements shortly before the deadline, and not informing ISVs. 
The PFJ needs to require Microsoft to release this information well 
in advance. Again, this is nothing new to the computer industry, but 
based on Microsoft's past and continuing behaviour, they need to be 
required by law to make this happen.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs. Section 
III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN or similar 
means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft Middleware 
Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be required at 
the time of the final beta test of the covered middleware, and 
whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 beta testers. 
But this information would almost certainly not be released in time 
for competing middleware vendors to adapt their products to meet the 
requirements of section III.H.3, which states that competing 
middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet unspecified 
technical requirements seven months before the final beta test of a 
new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented. The PFJ's 
overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' and 
``API'' means that Section III.D.'s requirement to release 
information about Windows interfaces would not cover many important 
interfaces. Microsoft needs to be forced to document fully all 
aspects of all API's necessary for vendors to create effective 
products for the Windows platform.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation.
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN because they work 
on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems.
    5. File Formats Remain Undocumented. No part of the PFJ 
obligates Microsoft to release

[[Page 26169]]

any information about file formats, even though undocumented 
Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to 
Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' 20 and 39). This is a critical piece 
of one of the technical barriers that Microsoft has erected against 
competition. File formats lie very near the heart of OS operations, 
and interaction with the kernel and OS structure. This documentation 
is critical to developers hoping to create software that is 
innovative and effective.
    6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed. Section 
III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license certain 
intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users and 
developers. While it would seem to hurt Microsoft, in fact, it keeps 
the Microsoft monopoly intact through Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. 
The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, is 
inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems.
    Microsoft has an army of lawyers that will seek to narrowly 
define every aspect of any proposed judgement in such a way that it 
becomes academic for Microsoft to step around the bounds of the 
settlement. They have demonstrated this behaviour before. I ask that 
the court educate itself on the terms and definitions, and strive to 
discourage loopholes based on interpretation of the language. Any 
settlement needs to have binding power that goes beyond the current 
Microsoft product offering, and address the behaviour of the 
company.
    Thomas Reilly, the Attorney General for Massachusetts, said 
this: ``The case against Microsoft is the most important antitrust 
action of our generation and one that will determine the future of 
the new economy. Because of its landmark importance, this case 
should not end without a remedy that restores competition.''
    Please make a judgement that is effective and enforcable. The 
computer and the internet have fundamentally changed our lives. To 
allow one company, through unlawful activities, dictate where this 
technology will take us, is simply not acceptable. These directions 
need to be decided by market forces. Please take heed of the many 
pitfalls that Microsoft will place for its competition, and the 
desire of this company to avoid any sort of compliance with existing 
laws.



MTC-00015920

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement with Microsoft, and I 
do not think that it will be effective in protecting the public 
against future anti-competitive behavior by Microsoft.
    I hold a bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Engineering 
from MIT, and have 20 years of experience as a software engineer. 
I'd like to comment on just two of problems I see in the PFJ. I'm 
aware of many more problems than these, but since this is not my 
primary line of work, I can only afford the time to respond to these 
items. I don't claim that these are the two most important 
problems--they are just two which have affected me professionally in 
the past. I trust that you'll receive comments from other people on 
the other issues.
    The PFJ should require Microsoft to disclose file formats. A 
huge barrier to the acceptance of GNU/Linux based systems as 
competitors to Windows on the desktop has been the lack of a word 
processor compatible with Microsoft Word. In a related area, 
Microsoft should be required to disclose network protocols. One can 
see how documented protocols directly aid competition by noting that 
the SMB file sharing protocol was documented (at least to some 
extent) by Microsoft, and there is now a thriving market for file 
servers that can be used by Windows systems but that are implemented 
on other platforms. These file servers offer different features from 
any Microsoft product, and the market has shown that there is a 
demand for them.
    To make this sort of requirement meaningful, there must be a way 
to penalize Microsoft if it can be shown that essential 
documentation is missing, camouflaged or delayed.
    Another issue is that Microsoft should never be allowed to 
specify in an End User License Agreement that a program can only be 
used on a Microsoft operating system. In addition, Microsoft should 
not be allowed to restrict a third party who uses Microsoft program 
development tools from being able distribute the resulting 
executables to users of other operating systems. In practice, this 
means that if Microsoft allows a third party user of one of its 
development tools to redistribute a DLL at all, then that user 
should be allowed to redistribute the DLL to anyone.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Pace Willisson
    4 Spruce Road
    Medway, MA 02053
    508 533 6430
    [email protected]



MTC-00015921

From: Tom Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement will just further Microsoft 
monopoly. If the students in school just learn Microsoft, then that 
is what they will use. Also, Microsoft controls the pricing for its 
software so they set any price they want for their software, so the 
monetary penalty is meaningless.
    Tom Davis



MTC-00015922

From: Phil Hilton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed settlement is a BAD idea.
    Phil Hilton
    [email protected] racle--You need a database. Larry needs 
a new boat.



MTC-00015923

From: Jeremy Garff
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:08am
Subject: Microsoft (fwd)
    To whom it may concern,
    Based on the information I have read regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust trial, I believe that the current proposed remedy 
negotiated by the Justice Department is nothing short of a givaway.
    I am not familiar with the policital motives behind the 
settlement, however it appeared to change 180 degrees overnight. 
First, the department of justice went aggressively against Microsoft 
for its anticompetitive practices, then changed suddenly to take the 
break up rememedy off the table and propose the current settlement. 
The settlement now before the court is nothing more than a slap on 
the wrist. This toothless settlement will do nothing to stop 
Microsoft from changing its behavior, as it is filled with too many 
loopholes and grey areas granting Micorosft too much power.
    I find it ironic that Microsoft can constantly sing the praises 
of innovation and competition in its public and political relations, 
while at the same time, they unfairly leverage their operating 
system in an effort to extend marketshare. We've seen this behavior 
crush competition such as Netscape, Novell, Word Pefect, etc. 
Microsoft must be stopped before other markets fall prey to .NET and 
newly released Windows XP. I for one, want to use an operating 
system, or browser based on its technical merit, not the companies 
ability to abuse its market power.
    I am fully behind the work in the ongoing trial against 
Microsoft. I feel that a break-up of the company would be a fair and 
just remedy which would restore competition to the marketplace. I 
have seen settlements with Microsoft in the past that led to little 
or no change in its corporate behavior. I kindly ask that if a 
settlement is reached, it be one that can guarentees a stop to 
Microsofts abuse of its monopoly position.
    In sending this e-mail, I ask that it be kept anonymous.
    Thanks in advance,
    Jeremy Garff



MTC-00015924

From: Joseph F. Lingevitch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to comment on the proposed judgment against 
Microsoft for their illegal conduct in abusing their monopoly in 
desktop operating systems. In summary, I think the penalties are 
excessively light and furthermore they do nothing to punish 
Microsoft for it's illegal behavior or correct the damages that have 
occurred. The settlement is unacceptable because it is far to 
lenient on Microsoft.
    My main frustration with Microsoft (I own Windows 95 and MS 
Office 97 software) is

[[Page 26170]]

their unwillingness to accurately document the details of their file 
formats for their office products and network protocols for sharing 
files. Their reason for doing so is to strengthen their monopoly 
status and prohibit competitors from producing products that 
challenge Microsoft market share.
    The power of network computers is in their ability to exchange 
meaningful information in a heterogeneous environment. Microsoft 
does not make sufficient allowances in it's software for 
intercommunication between computers other than those running 
Microsoft Operating system. Examples of the close protocols with 
inhibit this connectivity are the closed Microsoft Word file formats 
and the Microsoft's poorly documented NetBui protocol 
implementation. I urge you to strengthen the penalties against 
Microsoft to be commensurate with their violation of the law and to 
open up the desktop operating system market to competition. We would 
all benefit from the increased competition.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph F. Lingevitch
    U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
    Washington, DC 20375
    E-Mail: [email protected]
    Phone: (202) 404-4820
    FAX: (202) 404-7732
    CC:Joseph F. Lingevitch



MTC-00015925

From: Ralph Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I believe that the proposed settlement as written 
does not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the 
past. The proposed settlement does not adequately address their 
ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their illegal acts and not for 
the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an settlement just for sake of 
reaching a settlement. The settlement much provide for redress of 
past abuses, and incentive to prevent future abuses. A wrong that is 
not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00015926

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am against this settlement agreement. It does not sufficiently 
prohibit Microsoft from raising barriers against competitors.
    Richard Newbold



MTC-00015927

From: Chris C. Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement proposed in the Microsoft Antitrust case is a bad 
idea. It forces no real change on Microsoft's part. It creates an 
environment where the people responsible for monitoring Microsoft's 
compliance are Microsoft employees. These people don't eat unless 
Microsoft tells them so, and yet they're supposed to be relied upon 
to report violations?
    As a registered voter in the state of Michigan, I find this 
settlement to be unacceptable.
    Please note that this e-mail is sent as my comment on the 
proposed Microsoft Settlement, as is allowed during the Tunney Act 
public comment period.
    Chris Larson
    1103 East Woodfield Dr SE #12
    Grand Rapids, MI 49508
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015928

From: Sam Hostetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am concerned that the remediation proposed by the Justice 
Department does not go far enough to end the monolopy Microsoft 
enjoys in the software industry. Microsoft has a tendency to take an 
open protocol, such as Kerberos, and ``extend'' it in such a way as 
to make competing products unable to use the now closed protocol. 
For reference, this article appeared on Slasdot.org on March 2, 
2000: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/02/0958226
    This is a classic case of Microsoft ``racing, extending, & 
extinguishing'' and open protocol to destroy competition. If 
Microsoft's API (or Application Programming Interface) were made 
public, this would go a long way toward ending their strangle hold 
on the market place. We would then have an opportunity for a truly 
competitive product to challenge Microsoft's dominance.
    Competition in the marketplace drives innovation. Microsoft's 
``release often, patch often'' business model would surely fail in 
the face of competition from nimble companies releasing superior, 
more secure products. The American consumer wins.
    Sam Hostetter
    5710 Manning Road
    Indianpolis, IN 46228-1640
    ``If you design for the exceptions, the rules fall into place.''
    Sam Hostetter



MTC-00015929

From: Silvert, Stan
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my disapproval of the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement.
    Thank you,
    Stan Silvert



MTC-00015930

From: Chad Kidder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the DoJ settlement with Microsoft is a bad idea. 
They have proven that they will not abide by restrictions placed on 
them (look at prior court cases). There needs to be a non-Microsoft 
enforcement mechanism in place for whatever is reached. We need to 
make sure that it has teeth. A company with $40 billion in the bank 
will not take small fines seriously.
    I find section III.J of the settlement particularly onerous. 
This leaves loopholes that Microsoft will use to make sure that 
their APIs are still unknown. To correct this problem, Microsoft 
should be required to document all APIs that interact with any 
external software in a timely manner prior to Microsoft's release of 
them. This should go further to the office market where Microsoft 
has effectively used obfuscated file formats to stop compatibility 
with 3rd party software.
    We have let Microsoft crush the competition and we are now 
paying the price. If you want to use most computer programs, there 
is only a windows version. If you want to write some type of 
document, most people will only accept an office document. The 
current remedies do nothing to help stem this tide. As the 
government you are obliged to help right this. What we currently 
have negotiated does not.
    Chad Kidder
    College Station, TX



MTC-00015931

From: Ted Wood
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I think that the proposed settlement to the Microsoft case is 
bad and will not do anything to significantly alter Microsoft's 
behavior. It is a mere slap on the wrist and will allow them to 
continue to do all they can to gouge consumers and destroy the free 
software movement. Thank you.
    Ted Wood



MTC-00015932

From: Jetzer, Bill
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Not enough
    I have read the proposed settlement, and I do not think it is 
appropriate in its current state. It describes no punishment for 
Microsoft's past illegal activities, and leaves loopholes such that 
the letter of the settlement may be followed while the spirit of the 
settlement is not. I urge you to read and consider the content at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/, especially Mr. Kegel's essay which 
thoughtfully analyzes the proposal and explains these loopholes in

[[Page 26171]]

detail. His analysis is at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html. 
By the way, I am also cosigning Mr. Kegel's petition, as described 
at the top of http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Jetzer
    2822 Richardson St
    Madison, WI 53711



MTC-00015933

From: Randy Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It is not 
strong enough to break the monopoly Microsoft holds.
    Randy Carpenter, http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~randy
    Georgia Institute of Technology, [email protected]
    College of Computing, (404) 894-9046
    Computing and Networking Services Group, http://
www.cc.gatech.edu/cns



MTC-00015934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the settlement proposed for Mcrosoft is not 
appropriate. It is not enough of a punishment for a company who has 
been an abusive monopoly for several years. It can, in some ways, 
even be interperted as to help support Mcrosoft, rather than punish 
it.
    Thank you for your time,
    Kevin Rayhons
    San Antonio, TX



MTC-00015935

From: Fiedler, Jon
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    I would like to go on the record as opposing the Proposed Final 
Judgement in the US v Microsoft case.
    I don't think that the Proposed Final Judgement will do anything 
to foster competition in the marketplace as there are too many 
loopholes (specifically, the ``security exemption'' in disclosing 
APIs--this is not specifically defined, and is therefore open to 
lengthy court cases for interpretation). Put this together with the 
fact that the proposed remedies will expire in 5 years (with a 
possible 2 year extension), and it would be easy for Microsoft to 
simply wait out the term of punishment and then continue it's 
illegal and anticompetitive practices. (And with $36 billion in the 
bank, Microsoft definitely has the cash to survive that long). Once 
again, I would like to voice my strong opposition to this Proposed 
Final Judgement.
    Thank you,
    Jon
    Jon Fiedlervoice- 216.368.6075fax-
    216.368.3395
    Net AdminCase Western Reserve University [email protected]



MTC-00015936

From: RW Salnick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it as it currently stands. Please consider this a vote against 
the current settlement.
    RW Salnick
    PO Box 45117
    Seattle, WA
    98145



MTC-00015937

From: Ben Hartsell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Bennett Hartsell
    Houghton, MI



MTC-00015938

From: R. D. Porcher
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am taking this time to do what I believe is my duty in this 
matter by voicing my opinion on the matter of the Microsoft 
antitrust case. It is absolutely unthinkable that an entity with a 
record of anticompetative behavior as Microsoft has should be 
allowed to essentially walk free to continue to play dictator to the 
computing world. MS must be punished for their actions, and the 
current settlement is not the way to do it. If MS is allowed to go 
through with their ``generous'' offer of donating 1 billion in 
hardware and software to US schools, they will, in fact, be playing 
the government and the citizens of the US as fools. Such an action 
would make hardly a dent in their armor. Yet it would make that 
armor even stronger by giving them a foothold in the one market that 
they have yet to dominate. Apple computer, on of MS'' chief rivals, 
has long kept itself afloat by holding on to a tenuous lead in the 
education market. Allowing Microsoft to by punished by giving to US 
schools would, in effect, give them dominance in that market as 
well.
    So, you see, this so called punishment, is actually a thinly-
veiled attempt by MS to further their monopoly. They must not be 
allowed to do this. We rely on our government to protect us from 
those who would oppress us. Do not fail us here.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Dwight Porcher, III



MTC-00015939

From: John Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I would like to briefly state my opinion about the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust settlement.
    The remedies that have been proposed will have no effect on the 
behavior of this company. The history of their disregard for 
previous consent orders and decrees should make that clear. It 
should also be clear that they are using their monopoly position on 
desktop operating systems to aggressively pursue similiar total 
dominance of other markets such as multimedia transmitted over the 
Internet (``Windows Media Player''), security infrastructures 
(``Passort'') and so on.
    It may make sense for their to be only one maker of desktop 
operating systems. If so, then that company should be _effectively_ 
analyzed and regulated to ensure the needs of its customers 
(consumers and businesses) are being properly served, possibly in a 
manner like for public utilities. Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact 
and the ridiculous behavior of Microsoft in the trial (ie the 
videotape debacle, Gates'' deposition) should make it clear that 
this is a company that needs to be aggressively reined in.
    Sincerely,
    John Holland
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00015940

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The lawsuit should never have been brought in the first place. 
It is only another scheme to pump funds to trail lawyers who will 
then payoff the cooperating AG s with campaign contributions. The 
only reason the settlement isn t acceptable to the AG s is that it 
will help the schools more than it will meet their original plan. If 
this sounds cynical--it is!



MTC-00015941

From: Sander Wolf
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is a farce. There are no 
punishments in it that will keep Microsoft from continuing to do 
what it has always done --stifle competition unfairly.
    Sander Wolf



MTC-00015942

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I writing in regards to the proposed Microsoft Settlement. I 
have serious reservations regarding the proposed settlement. It 
appears to be full of holes that any moderately inventive group of 
lawyers could use to render the document nearly useless. I agree 
with all the points raised in the fine document at http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html, and would respectfully request 
that the proposed settlement be refined to include the modifictions 
included therein.
    As a computer professional, I ask that you to take the time and 
care necessary in understanding such a complex industry, and realize 
that Microsoft, being guilty of monopolistic practices, should be 
punished in a way that is meaningful and lasting. Thank you for your 
time and effort.
    Frank Riha

[[Page 26172]]

    8119 Spring Garden Rd.
    Parma, OH
    44129
    email: [email protected]
    email: [email protected]
    phone: 216-813-5734



MTC-00015943

From: Mike Schiraldi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that I have read about the proposed 
settlement, and I am not in favor of it in its current state. Please 
consider this a vote against the current settlement, as well as a 
vote to seek a settlement that is more favorable to Microsoft's 
competitors, and less favorable to Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Schiraldi
    20851 Isherwood Terrace
    Apt. #203
    Ashburn, VA
    20147



MTC-00015945

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Bad idea. Don't accept it. It basically lets Microsoft off the 
hook, and allows them to actually gain market share in the education 
arena.



MTC-00015946

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the case of the 9 States settlement with Microsoft I 
believe this is fair and needs to be settled. This entire fiasco 
over the last several years has cost the taxpayers far too much. It 
s time to settle and put those who think litigation is the American 
way in their place. Litigation only helps the lawyers and parasites 
who want to get a free ride. Prolonged litigation doesn t help the 
American economy or taxpayer. It s time to resolve and put this to 
an end.
    David M Lazor Sr



MTC-00015947

From: Jeff Born
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement seems extremeley watered down to me. I 
have been using computers for nearly two decades now and never 
remember one companies products showing up on a OEM computer as much 
as Microsoft's. I would have liked to see the original settlement 
with the breakup of Microsoft into two separate companies take 
place.
    Some not an intire list of grievences I have as a computer 
programer:
    Not every win32 in documented. Microsoft programmers have access 
to system call the rest of the world doesn't have.
    Registered File Types. On a brand new computer the mp3 extension 
is registered with the Windows Media Player. Try explaining how to 
use some other product to listen to mp3s to a novice computer user.
    Contracts Microsoft can force on OEM computer retailers. Some 
won't even sell Lynux on a computer because of this, let along 
another OS.
    Ask a novice computer user to list any known OSs, or office 
suites. My guess is 90% won't even know that a choice exists. Let 
along ask them to open a file from a competing company.
    Our country has been made great by competition, but also by 
having the goverment step in and restore balance when our choices 
have been taken away.
    Thanks for reading,
    Jeff Born



MTC-00015948

From: surra
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement does not open up competition--it still allows 
Microsoft? to bully & exclude others from developing software that 
would give us-- the consumer--choices. A mild example is their 
recent activity concerning a Linux (an operating system) application 
that would allow Linux users to run Windows? products within a Linux 
environment. The app is called Lindows and Microsoft's? reasoning is 
that the consumer would be ``confused'' between Windows? and 
Lindows! They have demanded & gotten the email list (including the 
messages--not just the addresses!) of anyone that wrote Lindows 
expressing an interest in the product! This is a mild example of the 
type of behavior Microsoft? is known for within the industry 
(intimidation via legal suits etc. that many small companies simply 
cannot afford to fight!) & was supposedly being stopped. Please 
modify the settlement to make it clear to Microsoft? that 
competition is acceptable but being a bully is NOT!
    thank you
    s shoaf
    [email protected]



MTC-00015949

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This was a political case from the begining M/S is an american 
copr. by & for americans.End it now in favor of M/S. If an inves. of 
a monopoly is needed it is of the U.S postal service.



MTC-00015950

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I request that this judicial battle be ended and Microsoft be 
left alone to continue to improve my computer operation.



MTC-00015951

From: Mighty Mik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is a bad idea, and lets a monopoly win. Since 
when does DOJ bow down before Microsoft?
    M.J. Ishmael
    Berkeley, California



MTC-00015952

From: Michael Dunlap
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a U.S. citizen and IT professional, I need to object in the 
strongest fashion to the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
company is a monopolist which shows no intention of ceasing its 
illegal behaviour, and the settlement does little to prevent 
Microsoft from engaging in this behaviour. If this settlement is 
allowed, it will just be a matter of time before Microsoft is 
brought up on antitrust charges again, forcing the U.S. to waste 
more of its taxpayers'' money and time. Microsoft needs to be forced 
to comply with standards and cease monopolistic behaviour since they 
have no intention of voluntarily doing so. The settlement does not 
adequately address this aim.
    Thank you for your time,
    Michael Dunlap
    (The opinion stated here does not necessarily reflect that of 
Yale University.)



MTC-00015953

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am addressing the people who find fault with Microsoft. If it 
were not for Bill Gates and his company Microsoft I would never have 
purchased a computer in the first place. Because of his genius and 
foresight to make the computer easy to use and understand I am now 
learning more and using the computer everyday. I plan to take a 
course at my local High School and try to get a job paying more than 
the minimum wage. I thought the American Way was to let the average 
citizen develop a product find a way to sell it and make a profit. I 
see the phone companies doing it the cable company has total control 
over us and PA and no-one is even bothering to look into their 
business. For instance a Walgreen just opened right down the street 
from and Eckerd Drug and that is called the American Way.
    Stop Netscape and whoever else has a problem with Microsoft& 
Bill Gates moving ahead with his genius programs and ability to hire 
the right people to help the average person get ahead. Shame on 
those that would stop the American Dream.



MTC-00015954

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00015955

From: Derek Martin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,

[[Page 26173]]

    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft is not a good thing.
    My name is Derek Martin. I am an electrical engineering Ph.D. 
student who will shortly be joining the corporate work force for an 
American semiconductor company. I use computers regularly (including 
Microsoft products and competitors, including but not limited to 
free software). I currently enjoy the environment of (some, though I 
would like to see more) competition among software vendors/design 
philosophies/market philosophies, etc.
    The proposed settlement does not do enough to ensure that this 
type of competition can continue. Microsoft just has too much market 
share and unfortunately continues to unfairly leverage this fact to 
push out potential competition, by moving standards and computer 
usage paradigms away from situations that allow competition. Many 
people such as myself agree that the world is better off with 
Microsoft products AND Apple products AND Linux AND Solaris AND 
Internet Explorer AND Netscape AND Office AND Free Office 
equivalents than it will be if Microsoft gets their way and we have 
only Windows+Office+Internet Explorer with whatever other so-called 
``innovations'' they want to force onto our computer and charge us 
lucratively for.
    There is competition, now. I can use Linux (for now, until 
Microsoft ``innovates'' some new proprietary thingy that I would 
*need* their software for, with competition being pushed out by 
designed incompatibilities with other Microsoft products). I could 
buy an Apple system (for now, until the chip makers decide not to 
produce PowerPC chips anymore because Microsoft has efficiently 
dominated the market, and decides to exhort computer makers to only 
sell their products on other platforms). These alternatives will 
soon disappear, in my opinion, if Microsofts previous actions which 
were found to violate Antitrust law, are effectively *encouraged* by 
applying weak, outdated, and otherwise ineffective remedies, as the 
current settlement proposal would do.
    Regards,
    Derek Martin



MTC-00015956

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We support the settlement it is fair to all. It s time to get on 
with business especially during present economic downturns
    Walter Harpen



MTC-00015957

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am satisfied with the proposed outcome as outlined on this 
website and I look forward to a speedy conclusion to this long and 
tedious legal affair.



MTC-00015958

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a consumer taxpayer student and proud user of 
multiple Microsoft products. While I find many problems in the 
proposed settlement especially the creation of the independent 
Technical Committee (TC) and the dangerously high amount of power 
and resources given to it and the incentives given by the settlement 
to Microsoft s competitors to delay progress and innovation by 
filing multiple complaints and thus delay product launches I 
nevertheless support this settlement as the lesser of two evils the 
greater evil being continued harassement of Microsoft and the 
American consumer through further baseless and merit-less 
litigation. Of course the preferred course of action is for the 
dropping of all action against Microsoft and the dismissal of any 
verdicts against it. Thank you very much.



MTC-00015959

From: Roger Cordes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a shareholder of Microsoft corporation, I am conflicted in 
this anti-trust matter; however, I can not, in good conscience, 
allow my worries over stock prices to overshadow my sense of 
business ethics. Microsoft has proven, time and time again, that 
they will stoop to any business practice without regard to class, 
morality, or even law. They have stolen (if it were not for Apple 
Computer, Microsoft would have absolutely no product whatsoever), 
they have cheated (an online poll at ZDNet concerning consumer 
satisfaction with Microsoft products was shown to have skewed 
results, due to a suspiciously enormous number of votes coming in 
from Microsoft employees), and worst of all, they have boxed out the 
free market of the personal computer industry.
    Article IV of the U.S. v. Microsoft: Court's Findings of Fact 
(http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm ), concerning 
cross-platform Middleware architectures and Microsoft's utter 
distaste for any such business practice, is of particular interest 
to me. Microsoft has proceeded to seek out any and all sources of 
cross-platform product, then ``made them an offer they couldn't 
refuse.'' Microsoft warned middleware manufacturers that if they did 
not abandon their cross-platform ways, Microsoft would be forced to 
punish them. Microsoft showed great interest in becoming the only 
platform available; this is just the type of behavior we needed this 
anti-trust case for.
    Microsoft has clouded the minds of countless millions who have 
been duped into thinking that there is no viable alternative to 
Windows. And in the current market, that may be the case. However, 
we the people, of the United States, have at our fingertips the 
opportunity to change this. Let us not miss this chance.
    Roger L. Cordes, III
    Raleigh, N.C.



MTC-00015960

From: Lake, Daniel
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a PC user from Portland, Oregon. I feel that the proposed 
settlement with Microsoft is unacceptable. In the past 5 years, 
choices in PC software have been taken away by Microsoft and I have 
been forced to use their products by default. They are all that is 
available due to licensing or bundling with hardware. The quality of 
MS products have gone downhill terribly, security and privacy are 
non-existent in their software, and because of company buy-outs or 
licensing tactics, I am forced to use MS software for virtually 
every task on my PC. Please find another settlement that allows for 
competition and lets microsoft know that they must compete fairly in 
the PC software market. Thank you,
    Dan Lake
    Portland, OR
    [email protected]



MTC-00015961

From: Howard Abbey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I believe the proposed settlement between the U.S. government 
and Microsoft is inadequate, inappropriate, and unacceptable.
    If particular, I take issue with the settlement's failure to 
stop Microsoft from using many of the anti-competitive licenses 
(such as the Enterprise licenses). These effectivly restrict 
companies from using both Microsoft and competing operating systems.
    I also take great issue with the fact that the settlement does 
not cover the monopoly over document formats that Microsoft 
currently enjoys. The Word file format, and all other formats of 
programs where Microsoft has greater than 90% market share, should 
be released to the public in a timely manner. As a consumer, I have 
tried to choose products that best fit my requirements. However, 
when dealing with others during my current job search, I am required 
to give resumes in Word format. Because of the ever changing and 
highly secretive format, I am forced to abandon my chosen software 
on my own system, and use Microsoft Word at the local library. If 
the Word format was public and an open standard, the software I use 
could support it, and this would be remedied.
    This agreement is not in the public interest, and should be 
discarded or reworked.
    Thanks for counting my opinion,
    Howard Abbey



MTC-00015962

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Hello Judge;
    I'm just going to ask you to let justice actually be done in the 
case of Microsoft vs. the USA.
    It makes no sense to allow Microsoft to decide which of its 
applications must be part of the operating system?and it makes even 
less sense to allow them to decide which companies are legitimate 
competitors and which are not. In fact, this entire Agreement makes 
very little sense. I trust you will do what is right.

[[Page 26174]]

    Sincerely,
    Bozena I.
    428 Bayberry Ct.
    Englishtown, NJ 07726



MTC-00015963

From: [email protected]. va.us@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone. They produce a good quality product and 
by integrating their programs together they provide better services 
to their customers. Move on to something else.



MTC-00015964

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My comments will be brief. I strongly support the current 
settlement with Microsoft and urge Judge Kotelly to bring a close to 
this litigation. The settlement is in the public interest which may 
be thought of as action that will bring about a greater public good 
for society. In my view the settlement achieves this noble goal. To 
drag the settlement out longer cannot help our economy or serve to 
advance innovation particularly during a time of international 
crisis and economic recession. If the settlement is not brought to a 
close the only winners will be attorneys and a few states that want 
more money more concessions and whose preference appears to be to 
punish Microsoft beyond what anyone could rationally perceive as 
fair. Judge Kotelly has a fair settlement to approve. I hope to see 
this chapter in American history brought to a close and let the 
courts and nation move on to the more important and threatening 
affairs that we currently face. There can be little doubt that 
nation faces far more threatening matters than Microsoft.
    Jeffrey Greene
    Professor of Political Science
    University of Montana.



MTC-00015965

From: Peng Zang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think this settlement is a bad idea. It does indeed make an 
effort in softening the application barrier, however, so many holes 
exist (eg. API documentation can be changed late in the development 
stage, or undocumented file formats) that rather much of the power 
behind the settlement is lost. It is my belief that this settlement 
will make it harder (or rather take more money, which, I would like 
to point out that Microsoft has) for Microsoft to maintain the 
monopoly, but will not prevent the continuation of the monopoly. 
Stronger measures should be taken. Thank you for your time.
    Peng Zang
    [email protected]



MTC-00015966

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the current settlement is a very good one. Responsible 
people have endorsed this settlement. Microsoft has been a leader in 
the technological industry and has been a major contributor to it s 
growth. Those who oppose this settlement are not acting in the best 
interest of our country. I urge the settlement to be approved by 
everyone concerned. It is in the best interest of our country.
    Sincerely
    Marvin Risley



MTC-00015967

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Lets settle this without wasting more time and money. This has 
gone on long enough.



MTC-00015968

From: O'Brien, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to add my comments regarding the Microsoft 
Settlement. I find the article written by an Austrailian to 
summarize my thought quite well--found at:
    http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2002-01-02-002-20-OP-
MS The current settlement does nothing to stop, slow or punish the 
monopoly power of Microsoft. This needs be address.
    Thank you
    Michael O'Brien
    Software Engineer



MTC-00015969

From: danny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
correct existing anti-trust behavior problems and even provides an 
opportunity to expand with government approval.
    thankyou for your time.



MTC-00015970

From: Robert Thielke
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    I am writing to express my concern for the Department of Justice 
proposed settlement with Microsoft corporation. I believe the 
settlement contains overly narrow definitions of Microsoft products 
in terms of their restrictions. It leaves out programs like 
Microsoft Outlook that are ingrained in many corporations. The 
definitions of API and Middleware leave lots of wriggle room for 
Microsoft in terms of what they must make available to competitors. 
I realize it is difficult to pin these things down in the ever 
changing world of software but I think that more must be done to put 
some teeth into these rules.
    Microsoft has shown a history of not fully documenting API's 
making it more difficult for programmers to write software and 
system managers to maintain it. An effort should be made to ensure 
there is documentation released for products in a timely manner.
    Microsoft's new primary goal of security is a good one. However, 
if they use it to try to exclude software from third parties they 
will be locking down their hold on the desktop even further. I 
definitely do not want to discourage an effort to make systems more 
secure but Microsoft must still make an effort to share information 
so that creating drivers for hardware and writing software that runs 
well with Windows is not so difficult. I believe it is in 
Microsoft's best interest to pursue the above issues and I hope 
there would not have to be much enforcement of the settlement. They 
have achieved a position through illegal business practices that 
warrants steps be taken to prevent them from further damaging othher 
businesses.
    Thank you,
    Robert Thielke
    2570 N. 84th St
    Wauwatosa, WI 53226



MTC-00015971

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Justice Dept.:
    Enough already! The settlement is fair to all so quit fucking 
around and close it already.
    The state attorney generals still fighting this are a bunch of 
cry baby fucking liberals!!



MTC-00015972

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the proposed settlement is fair and should be 
accepted. Particularly since I believe the Justice Dept action 
occurred in large part because Microsoft did not hire an expensive 
lobbist or contribute heavily to either political party. I have long 
wondered why they have not pursued a company like TimeWarner--a 
total monopoly of practically all media--instead. As a consumer who 
uses Microsoft products I think the offered settlement should be 
accepted. In our current economic situation we should not be trying 
to bring down a great company that is good for the consumer for 
education and that gives so generously to charity.



MTC-00015973

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft should be freed from all litigation and allowed to do 
business in the American way in a capitalist economy country



MTC-00015974

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to stop litigation and get our economy back on line. 
You do not have to

[[Page 26175]]

be a rocket Scientist to figure this out. STOP LITIGATION NOW!!



MTC-00015975

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the Government was very unfair in prosecuting Microsoft. 
I fail to see where Microsoft has committed any violation of Federal 
laws.



MTC-00015976

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    my comment for msft is few egg head try tu run down the best co 
in the world many foreign co laugh at us the way we handle .so bad



MTC-00015977

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Leave Microsoft alone! This market is competitive and I am not 
aware of any artificial barriers to entry. Already their market 
share is in danger from many competitors. They must continue to meet 
consumer demands in order to survive. Take no further action. The 
settlement is enough.



MTC-00015978

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Attacking Microsoft to encourage innovation is like having sex 
to encourage virginity. End this pointless and unwarranted witch 
hunt now before the damage to our economy gets worse!



MTC-00015979

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The way the goverment and judges are handling is bad. leave MSFT 
alone with out it we have no progress.the world is laughing at US.



MTC-00015980

From: Don Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    It appears that the Proposed Final Judgment allows significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. My opinion is 
that the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and 
should not be adopted as it presently stands.
    1. The PFJ doesn't consider the issue of Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems.
    2. The PFJ contains misleading and narrow definitions and 
provisions.
    3. The PFJ fails to prohibit anticompetitive license terms 
currently used by Microsoft.
    4. The PFJ as written seems to lack an effective enforcement 
mechanism. You need to toughen it up quite a bit. Examine any 
proposals from Microsoft with an eye toward how their proposal would 
restrict the effect of the judgment to smaller contexts and fewer 
products, and then adjust the language to broaden the effect to more 
(and future) products and larger contexts.
    Regards,
    Don Davis / Tel: 937.235.0096



MTC-00015981

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Nation needs to be strong at home as we have much more 
serious crises to take care of. The settlement proposed by the J.D. 
is adequate and should be accepted by all parties involved. Let us 
move on for the good of the Nation and the U.S.economy. V.T.Y.
    Anthony Ingargiola



MTC-00015982

From: The Herring
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    I'm writing to express my disagreement with the terms of the 
antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The issue for me is that the 
settlement, while superficially inflicting a penalty on Microsoft, 
does nothing to change the firm's behavior from this point onward. 
In fact, donations of software to schools only help Microsoft to 
cement its dominance of the desktop operating system market.
    Rather than focusing on financial penalties for Microsoft's past 
activities, the settlement should require the firm to either adopt 
open standards or publish detailed specifications of its own 
standards so that any skilled individual can understand them. This 
would allow interoperability between Microsoft's Windows and Office 
software and competing products, such as UNIX-based operating 
systems and Sun's StarOffice. Creating interoperability is a 
necessary condition for restoring competition in the software 
industry.
    Thank you for your attention to this matter.
    Sincerely,
    David Geffen



MTC-00015983

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I DON T FEEL THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD GO AFTER MICROSOFT. THE 
CASE SHOULD BE SETTLED AND WE SHOULD STOP THROWING TAXPAYERS MONEY 
TO ATTORNEYS. MICROSOFT SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR BEING 
INNOVATIVE.



MTC-00015984

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We always thought we had a free enterprise system in this 
country. We believe the government s involvement in this was un-
necessary.



MTC-00015985

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I tried to understand the legal description of this case but 
with my limited legal understanding I found myself lost to really 
understand all the aspects of the judgement.



MTC-00015986

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We believe that the government and all the state attorney 
generals should stop any further action against this great American 
company. Microsoft is too important a company for the economic 
health of the entire country the inordinate amount of time and money 
required to defend itself could have been better used for the 
development of even better products that benefit the national 
economy in general and the consumer and the stockholders in 
particular. Antitrust laws were not enacted to protect other 
companies let them compete in the free economic arena by offering 
products whose quality would make them acceptable to the consumer. 
If they lost in that arena it was because the consumer preferred 
Microsoft products not theirs! The USA DOJ should not come to the 
defense of any sore loser who comes to them crying uncle Sam!



MTC-00015987

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For the good of the country I support the settlement achieved 
with Microsoft. GET IT DONE.
    Thank you.
    JOhn T. Gilbert



MTC-00015988

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As someone who has worked with Microsoft products since the mid 
1980s I have seen how marketing muscle has won out over far superior 
products. It s time for the Microsoft monopoly to end and true 
innovation to enter the microcomputer market.



MTC-00015989

From: Lawrence
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think you should not punish Microsoft for being good at 
business and winning markets over. I am even more encouraged by the 
whining of their competitors to never use non-Microsoft products 
ever. We will continue to sell and stand by Microsoft products no 
matter what the government tries to do to them.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 26176]]



MTC-00015990

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft was a scape goat. Future technological debuncles will 
be the proof of the puddin.
    Leaders are leaders.



MTC-00015991

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    close the case now.



MTC-00015992

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I believe the Microsoft settlement is fair and constructive. 
Please uphold the settlement.
    Charles F. Shank
    Clearwater Fl.



MTC-00015993

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise. 
Settle the Microsoft case.



MTC-00015994

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    stop harraisng microsoft let thecknology grow let microsoft make 
new inventions we need it now dont ruin our economy



MTC-00015995

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We don t feel that Microsoft has done anything wrong. The 
government has done more harm than good.
    Microsoft has created innovative products and created thousands 
of jobs. They should not be punished.



MTC-00015996

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am glad that a settlement has been reached. This has gone on 
to long and a lot of money has been wasted on both sides. I still 
back Microsoft and think that the states should have never did what 
they did.
    Lets fight the real crime and work on the homeless and teenage 
crime.



MTC-00015997

From: [email protected]. verio.net@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Under the Tunney Act I wish to submit my comments in reguards to 
the currently purposed Microsoft settlement.
    There are many problems with this settlement and I cannot 
possibly discuss them all with any proper length. I would like to 
focus on one particular item.
    The currently proposed settlement with Microsoft does not 
prevent Microsoft from continuing the practice of intentional 
incompatibilities. Microsoft has historically used this practive to 
protect and extend its monopoly. This behavior was set forth in the 
1996 Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit where the judge ruled in the case 
that ``Caldera had presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilties alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.''
    Microsoft continues this practice today by makeing changes to 
its SMB/CIFS networking protocols to prevent any non-Microsoft OS to 
be able to interoperate with Windows 2000. In fact, section 
III(J)(2) of the proposed final settlement actually seems to give 
Microsoft the continued right to hide and modify these communication 
protocols.
    The proposed final settlement does nothing to prohibit Microsoft 
from continuing this practice of constantly creating 
incompatibilities to enhance the Application Barrier of Entry.
    Jonathan Call



MTC-00015998

From: ETSU
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do NOT support the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ in 
its current form. I believe that the language used in the settlement 
proposal leaves to many loopholes which Microsoft has a history of 
using to continue in their anti-competitive practices.
    Charles McMackin
    1304 Spring St.
    Johnson City, TN 37604



MTC-00015999

From: William Ogus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I believe that the terms of the proposed Microsoft Anti-Trust 
settlement are completely inadequate. They are counter to the 
interests of the American people and the economy as a whole. They do 
nothing to address the behavior that Microsoft has been convicted 
of. They neither punish past behavior sufficiently nor do they 
prevent similar behavior in the future.
    This is a bad settlement.



MTC-00016000

From: Andrew Lundberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to let you know that I think the proposed 
settlement is a bad idea.
    Andrew Lundberg, PhD
    Staff Engineer
    Equinox Corporation
    Baltimore, MD
    [email protected]



MTC-00016001

From: Pete Flugstad
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement does absolutely NOTHING to punish 
Microsoft for past anti-trust violations, and does NOTHING to 
prevent more anti-trust violations in the future. It's a joke, 
written BY Microsoft lawyers, FOR Microsoft, and rubber stamped by 
the DoJ. It's a tremendously bad idea and will set competition in 
the computer field back by decades.
    Pete Flugstad
    Iowa City, IA



MTC-00016002

From: Eric Carlson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    To whom it may concern--
    The proposed Microsoft settlement is unacceptable in its current 
form.
    The settlement does not adequately penalize Microsoft for its 
past infringements of the law. For many years OEMs have been under 
control of Microsoft, and simply ``formalizing'' this law in a 
document is not enough. Microsoft has been declared guilty of past 
wrongs, and must now be held accountable.
    Thank you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    Eric Carlson
    2901 Ashby Ave
    Berkeley, CA 94705



MTC-00016003

From: Nathan W. Labadie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    After reading over the proposed settlement for the Microsoft 
case, I'd like to say I am in complete disagreement with the 
proposed solution. Microsoft is a company that has done irrepairable 
damage to the computer industry as a whole. This is nothing more 
than a slap on the wrist to them.
    Nathan W. Labadie
    Sr. Security Specialist
    Wayne State University
    [email protected]
    313/577.2126
    313/577.1338 fax
    C&IT Information Security Office: http://security.wayne.edu



MTC-00016004

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please accept the settlement agreed to by Microsoft. I feel this 
is a fair settlement and it is time to let technology start working 
again. We cannot stand anymore litigation.
    Thanks
    MLH



MTC-00016005

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

[[Page 26177]]

Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not a Microsoft stockholder and do not even use Internet 
Explorer very often but I support the Dept. of Justice settlement. 
The anti-trust suit against Microsoft was a politically motivated 
abuse of the law by Microsoft s competitors who attempted to use the 
DOJ to win what they could not win in the marketplace.
    The proposed settlement preserves Microsoft s ability to 
continue to innovate. Microsoft has been largely responsible for 
making the world of computers accessible to the average person and 
should be encouraged instead of being persecuted by the US 
government. The nine States that are resisting this settlement 
including Massachusetts are perfporming a legalized extortion and 
deserve to be condemned.
    Sincerely
    Anthony Conte



MTC-00016006

From: Jacob Rose
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings and thank you for reading my comments.
    As a citizen who has been burned again and again by Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices, I feel the Proposed Final Judgement is 
inadequate in addressing Microsoft's egregious behavior.
    Both in my former capacity as a local government computer 
systems manager and as an individual citizen, I have been forced to 
spend taxpayer money and my own money to buy Windows licenses when 
Windows was not even a product my department or I required or 
wanted. I have seen applications which used to function on competing 
operating systems, such as Microsoft Office on OS/2, drop support. I 
have seen important applications software such as Internet Explorer 
weaseled into dominance by Microsoft using their desktop OS 
monopoly, and then be deliberately withheld from a competing OS like 
Linux, even though it is made available for non-threatening Solaris, 
which is so very compatible with Linux that many Linux applications 
run unmodified on it. I have seen all competition systematically 
wiped out of local government by steadily expanding license 
agreements, as Microsoft positioned its products to be completely 
interdependant and completely incompatible with its competitors. 
These competitors range from former heavyweights like Novell, 
WordPerfect, Borland, and briefly, Netscape, to longtime educational 
giants like Apple Computer, which pioneered personal computing. All 
have been swept aside not by better products, but by Microsoft's 
clever--but illegal--business practices.
    I believe that Microsoft will find ways to weasel out of the 
Proposed Final Judgement which has been drafted, in part due to its 
specificity. It must be generalized to describe Microsoft's practice 
of proprietization which Microsoft calls ``Embrace and Extend.''
    Public standards are the root of the Internet itself; it would 
not have been possible for the Internet to exist, sharing data 
amongst thousands of different types of computers, from digital 
telephones to mainframes and supercomputers, without the system of 
public ``RFC'' standards. Microsoft's ``Embrace and Extend'' policy 
is simply to make their software compatible with these RFCs, and 
other standards developed publically (often at public expense), and 
then introduce specific incompatibilties to make non-Microsoft 
software fail, often at the same time that new features are added to 
the Microsoft software that require the tainted upgrade. To meet 
this challenge, you must force the *interface*--any interface-- 
which Microsoft defines or employs, now or in future, to be public 
domain, published and available for use without limitation. This 
must include all file formats, APIs, communication protocols, and 
interpreter specifications.
    These interfaces are the very essence of compatibility: For 
competition to exist in the applications area, competitors must be 
able to read Microsoft files to be able to offer products that can 
be used concurrently with Microsoft products, and they must be able 
to take advantage of the same Windows services (API) that Microsoft 
itself uses in its products.
    For competition to exist in the operating systems area, 
competitors must be able to replicate the functionality of the 
Windows API reliably so that products written for Windows may 
operate elsewhere. Finally, for competition to continue in the 
Internet realm, the protocols and interpreters that are used by 
Microsoft products must be available to those who would create 
applications and services that talk to these Microsoft applications.
    Since Microsoft has already decimated the innovative space that 
was the web browser market, the Web itself is already changing to 
conform to just one browser; Microsoft's. Many sites no longer 
function in other browsers, which face the Sisyphean task of 
duplicating Microsoft's ever-changing Javascript interpreter without 
its (ever-changing) specifications. Where do you think the Internet 
will be in a decade, if Microsoft's interfaces remain undisclosed, 
or even partially proprietary? I can tell you: all the hot new 
services of the future will operate using proprietary Microsoft 
protocols, and anyone who wants to compete in the online services 
market will have to accept Microsoft's license terms and write 
systems that only run where Microsoft wants them to run, because the 
potential customers will all be locked into a system of Microsoft 
products.
    Microsoft has made its interfaces de-facto standards, and you 
must now make sure that they face that fact by converting them into 
complete and public standards.
    Thank you,
    Jacob Rose
    A voting citizen from Fairfax, Virginia, 22033, U.S.A.



MTC-00016007

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to give my opinion of the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, as allowed under the Tunny Act.
    I do not believe the settlement in it's current form does enough 
to redress the wrongs that Microsoft as a company has done in the 
past, nor does it prevent similar wrongs in the future. 
Specifically, it's ability or inability to function as a destructive 
monopoly. Please revise the settlement so that competition in the 
``desktop'', ``browser'', ``office suite'' and other markets, can be 
restored.
    Thank you,
    Jonathan Haskins
    Web Designer
    Los Angeles, CA



MTC-00016008

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The government should not restrict product inovation. This 
should be decided by the markets. If a Corporation produces a 
superior product consumers and corporate users will purchase the 
product.
    Government intervention should be limited.



MTC-00016009

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the case against Microsoft should be brought to a 
quick and final conclusions. I recommend the current settlement. 
Thanks.



MTC-00016010

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Pre-Economics major at UCLA. I am a user of Microsoft 
products and they seem fairly priced.
    My observation is that the anti-trust litigation brought against 
Microsoft has not been good for consumers. Furthermore I feel it 
negatively impacted the economy of the United States. And the sooner 
this matter can be settled the sooner our economy and country can 
move forward.



MTC-00016011

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I can t say that I m sorry to hear that Microsoft has lost a 
little ground but as everybody knows Bill Gates pretty much stole 
the software from his once partner and as they say What goes around 
comes around. As far as I m concerned Bill Gates has been allowed to 
have too much go on and thought that he wouldn t get caught at it. 
If only the penalty toward him could be greater I don t think too 
many people would shed a tear over his loss!



MTC-00016012

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs

[[Page 26178]]

    I find it difficult to discuss the settlement when I never 
agreed with the merits of the lawsuit. It troubles me that we are 
able through mechanisms beyond my control to tear down a company 
that has done no wrong except outperform all others. Whenever I 
think of Americans trying to rip down Microsoft I am reminded of the 
novel Atlas Shrugged. Where would our business and manufacturing 
efforts be if Microsoft pulled a John Galt or a (?) Reardon and just 
left the face of the earth? And we were all so worried about Y2K at 
least then Microsoft was there to help us. Imagine every server and 
pc running a Windows variant not having a bit of manufacturers 
support tomorrow? Yet as troublesome of a picture that lends many of 
us are trying to do just that. In summation short of the suit never 
seeing the courthouse steps any action against Microsoft is too 
much!
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00016013

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This has been the biggest waste of time and money. At the most 
MS should have been issued a cease and desist. They a are big boy 
company that has provided a lot of wealth for many began and 
industry and has made Seattle a versitle city and not being 
dependent on Boeing. Perhaps there are a few winers out there that 
could not compete but for heaven sake lets get on with this. We need 
to get our economy going and stop worrying the outcome of MS and 
will this mean the JD is going to examine everything that is done in 
American free enterprise business.



MTC-00016014

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I understand that Microsoft was found guilty of a couple of anti 
trust violations. I believe that the proposed settlement (that has 
been accepted by the DOJ and nearly half of the At. Gen s) is above 
and beyond what is due for violations of the argruably outdated 
Sherman Act. It is time to settle this case and get it behind us as 
Americans and as a country--and focus on more important and obvious 
violations against our Nation.



MTC-00016015

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel the settlement is rather hard on Microsoft when one 
considers that the suit should never have been bought in the first 
place. But if Microsoft is satisfied I guess it is okaye.



MTC-00016016

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the government should leave Microsoft alone. All 
that they have done is waste the tax payers money. Microsoft is only 
done what every company has done. Is the government going to go 
after AOL or Exxon or some of the other companies that have gotten 
big ? No they won t



MTC-00016017

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my business I use some Microsoft products as well as their 
competitors products. In particular I prefer a word processing 
program made by Corel. I last paid over $300 for the program. A 
similar Microsoft product came with my computer for free. How are 
consumers being hurt by Microsoft? This litigation against Microsoft 
seems ridiculous and should be settled immediately in order to save 
taxpayer dollars benefit consumers and inevitably help our economy. 
Settle now!



MTC-00016018

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Every time I think this is settled I hear someone else doesn t 
want to accept the settlement.
    Enough already. I think this whole thing was blown out of 
proportion from the start. Accept the settlement and get back to 
business.



MTC-00016019

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We would like to take a stand on solving the Microsoft case.



MTC-00016020

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft comments
    I have tried both netscape and microsoft web browsers, It turned 
out that microsoft has a more friendly and consistently performing 
program. There is nothing to prevent people (like us little users) 
from making their own choice.If AOL can't be competive on the 
performance of their system, Then boot them out of our legal system 
with all their hassle suits
    M. Wolf
    [email protected]



MTC-00016021

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe the case filed against Microsoft was initiated by 
competitors who are locked in a fierce competitive industry which 
needs far less federal meddling. I also believe this act 
precipitated the tech meltdown. I suggest less interference from 
government on all levels. I also want the government to downsize. 
Comment: All industry has benefitted by applying computer technology 
except the government which indeed did add computers but it 
continues to grow so fast that it s size rivals private industry. If 
this case is dropped or settled promptly it could be the catalyst to 
haul the country out of the recession.



MTC-00016022

From: Steven DeVault
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current remedies proposed in the DOJ v. MS trial are 
laughable. As an american citizen and software developer, I have 
suffered firsthand due to MS's juggernaut design tactics. 
Microsoft's power as a corporate gatekeeper is unacceptable, and 
threatens the stability of the global marketplace.
    Punish them, while you still can.
    No Peace Without Justice.
    Steven DeVault
    10600 Bloomfield Dr. #1029
    Orlando, FL 32825



MTC-00016023

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    goverment should leave microsoft alone.



MTC-00016024

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please end the litigation against Microsoft in Microsoft s 
favor. Help the economy by not persecuting Microsoft.



MTC-00016026

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is about time for the case to disappear from the lime 
light. The settlement of the case is only in the publics interest it 
will save the taxpayer money Microsoft can focus on its job innovate 
bring new and better technology to market prvided tech jebs earn tax 
dollars help provide a more favorable trade balance etc. The special 
interes that opposes the settlement have the same right as microsoft 
to build a better mouse trap. Thanks for listening
    M.G. Fred Kick



MTC-00016029

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  2:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Do not sell us out to Microsoft. Please!
    Robert Lorenzini Pres
    Newport Harbor Net



MTC-00016030

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am encouraging the courts to settle with Microsoft under the 
proposed agreement. I think Microsoft has benefitted the economy and 
the country and should not be punished for that.

[[Page 26179]]



MTC-00016031

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that it is time for the Federal goverment to stop 
listening to the whining of companies that can t compete due to 
their ineptitude. Capitalism is driven by companies that produce the 
best product for the best price which Microsoft clearly does. Its 
time to drop this foolishness and quit wasting the taxpayers money.



MTC-00016032

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I AM IN TOTAL FAVOR OF THIS SETTLEMENT !



MTC-00016033

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is my view that this settlement with the Federal Government 
and state attorneys is fair. I feel there should be no further 
sanctions against Microsoft these sanctions are enough and are just 
to all parties involved.



MTC-00016034

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I truly believe it is in the best interest for the Country and 
also myself for the Federal Government to end this case against 
Microsoft as soon as possible. I see no purpose and especially no 
value to the people of the USA in destroying a well run company that 
has done absolutely nothing illegal. Being agressive and competitive 
is not against the law the last time I checked. Please end this 
matter NOW.
    John J. Pritchard



MTC-00016035

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    As a citizen of the United States of America from the state of 
Maryland I would like to urge you to settle the antitrust case with 
Microsoft. The settlement that was reached between the federal 
government and microsoft on November 3 2001 in my opinion was a fair 
and reasonable compromise. As a IT professional working in a 
hospital there are more pressing issues that needed to be addressed 
than this antitrust case. Seeing relatives and friends became 
unemployed recently because of the declining economy makes 
settlement of this antitrust case more urgent and necessary.
    Sincerely
    Stephen Tse



MTC-00016036

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I DO NOT support the current settlement. Microsoft should be 
broken up in the public interest. Thank you.



MTC-00016037

From: Stephen Mencik
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Under the Tunney Act, I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I agree with the problems identified in Dan 
Kegel's analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html).
    I also agree with the conclusion reached by that document, 
namely that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and 
encourages significant anticompetitive practices to continue, would 
delay the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating 
systems, and is therefore not in the public interest. It should not 
be adopted without substantial revision to address these problems.
    Stephen Mencik
    1002 Red Harvest Road
    Gambrills, MD 21054



MTC-00016038

From: Emery Ford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement does not do enough to punish Microsoft for its 
anti-competitive behavior. Nor do the rememdies seem particularly 
effective, especially considering that Microsoft has a track record 
for intrerpreting such laws according to their own interpretation.
    Sincerely,
    Emery Ford, Software Developer
    Kensington, MD 20895
    H.Emery Ford
    [email protected]



MTC-00016039

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish our Iowa Attorney General would focus his time and 
resources on the good state of Iowa instead of trying to promote his 
good name at the expense of taxpayers. This law suit has gone on 
long enough and needs to end. People like Tom Miller have made 
Microsoft out to be a bad guy when there products have 
revolutionized business and home computing. We Americans have a 
choice to buy any product we also have the choice not to buy. May be 
Tom Millers and his State Cronies should spend there time on the 
likes of Enron and Arthur Anderson.



MTC-00016040

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a retired senior citizen that was employed for many years 
in industry. The accusations brought against Microsoft by our 
justice department never seemed to ring true in my mind. I had 
witnessed in the working world the productivity improvements of 
Windows Word and Excel. It appeared to me that a group of almost 
great companies such as AOL Time Warner Sun Etc. had conspired to 
limit or slow down the progress of Microsoft. As our government and 
nine other states have settled I ask with the economy in the worst 
shape it has been in years with little or no help from our 
government. Should the AGof a few states be putting our economic 
recovery at risk because they dont agree with what was a more than 
fair settlement?
    Brian W Jones



MTC-00016041

From: Matthew Strait
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the proposed settlement does not adequatly adress 
the problem of the Microsoft monopoly and the harm it does to the 
quality of software.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew Strait



MTC-00016042

From: Sean Corliss
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    I almost decided not to submit my comments regarding this 
antitrust suit, since I've pratically given up hope that Microsoft 
might actually become a positive corporate member of the United 
States, and I personally feel powerless to change their behavior. 
I've been working in the computer industry for about 8 years. before 
I was computer literate, I actually started out very pro-Microsoft. 
I've been watching this case very closely.
    I have come to realize that Microsoft is currently a huge 
liability to the future of our country. I've concluded that they 
have and will continue to erode the spirit, which founded America as 
a land of opportunity. They have abused the system, and have made it 
extremely difficult for individuals to live in a Microsoft free 
environment. Every day it takes more effort to keep Microsoft out of 
my home life. Be assured that they will continue to to dominate 
other markets even as they continue to delay these proceedins. .Net 
platform, X-Box, Passport, IE, and other Microsoft initiatives will 
convince illiterate consumers that Microsoft has their best interest 
at heart. After all, they are selfless enough to donate $1 billion 
dollars to the education market!
    I strongly urge you to reject the proposed settlement, the 
language of which comes from Microsoft's own lawyers. This 
settlement will only justify Microsoft's

[[Page 26180]]

actions when it attempts to force the open source movement to its 
death, since the settlement allows Microsoft to determine the 
meaning of ``viable business'. This settlement only strengthens 
Microsoft's ``delay and deny'' tactics, since the oversight 
committee has only the illusion of actual power to keep Microsoft 
from continuing its illegal practices. Who would have thought that 
one word ``bundling,'' would have been the undoing of the last 
antitrust settlement?
    In conclusion, did you ever hear the story about the scorpion 
that asked the frog for a ride across the water? When the frog asked 
why the scorpion had stung it, midway across the river, the scorpion 
replied, ``It's in my nature.''
    It's also in Microsoft's nature to abuse the spirit of our legal 
system for it's own purposes. They have shown many times that they 
cannot be trusted, and will continue to abuse it's monopoly. 
Microsoft knows that we will not hurt them. Many believe that 
hurting Microsoft will hurt our economy, security, and stability of 
our country. This only reinforces the urgency to foster alternatice 
solutions, so that our country does not experience a ``single point 
of failure,'' as well as enhancing consumer choice.
    I strongly urge you to objectively reject the proposed antitrust 
settlement, with all of your heart and mind.
    Sincerely,
    Sean Corliss
    Sr. Support Analyst/Web developer



MTC-00016043

From: Steven Lewis Maxson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams,
    I very strongly believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust case is a travesty of justice: When was the last time you 
heard the loser in a case (which is essentially a criminal trial) 
call the outcome fair? Below I will add some factual basis for my 
opinions.
    1. I have an acquaintance who was an officer at IBM when the 
Internet Explorer web browser first was released ``for free''. (He 
is now a vice president at IBM.) When he joined management at IBM, 
he was given some antitrust schooling, and part of their advice was 
``if you ever give anything away for free, plan on spending the rest 
of your life in jail''. At that time, IBM had only about 60% market 
share, or a much smaller market share than Microsoft has. The clear 
presumption is that when a market leader gives things away for free 
that directly compete with a competitor's product, thay are trying 
to destroy the competitor. You should be starting criminal antitrust 
proceedings against Microsoft management, not letting the company 
off of the hook.
    2. The fact that the Internet Explorer web browser is tightly 
integrated into their operating system product makes all computers 
using Windows and Internet Explorer more vulnerable to remote 
exploits (``cracking''), even when the web browser is not in use. 
This is well known in the computer security community, and it is 
well known than with this degree of integration there is no way 
whatsoever of making such computers even appproximately or 
reasonably secure. By permitting ``tight integration'' of their web 
browser into their operating system, you leave the world naked to 
computer hackers, crackers and terrorists. These matters are not 
talked about in public, but every computer connected to the internet 
and using the Microsoft Windows operating system products with 
tightly integrated Internet Explorer web browser intact is naked to 
the world and it is not possible, even in principle, to make them 
secure against remote exploit. (We have been fortunate so far that 
no really low level exploits have been developed and/or deployed 
against the Windows/IE vulnerabilities, as this would probably be 
the death of the internet.)
    3. INtegration of the web browser into the operating system is 
laargely irrelevant from the perspective of providing customer 
service and features which customers desire. There are well known 
ways of providing ``fascile interoperability'' which do not go as 
far as direct tight integration. I have indicated above that the 
mere presence of a web browser *within* the operating system raises 
well known inherent security risks. (You not only have the web 
browser as a pathway into the very heart of the machine itself, but 
its incorporation in the heart of the machine means you are 
necessarily precluded from taking other protective measures any 
reasonably prudent operating system designer would include in his 
design This means that there are necessarily going to be ways to 
take control of a Windows/IE machine which is connected to the 
internet without sending an email and without the user visiting a 
hostile site, etc.). Web browsers are notorious for the new exploits 
always being discovered for them, and this means the consequences of 
visiting a hostile website on the internet can be far more serious 
for a Windows/IE user. Tight integration also increases the 
possssible seriousness of the consequences of computer viruses, 
worms, trojans and other hostile agents.
    4. The conclusion is that the tightly integrated web browser's 
sole function is to destroy competition, since it is not necessary 
for providing customers features and services which might be 
desireable, it incorporates many features which are hazardous to the 
customer's interestsand the computer using community as a whole, and 
since it violates good design principles and derogates security 
simply by its existence.
    5. In addition to the tight integration of web browsers into the 
operating systems issue (which was the pre-eminent issue of the 
trial, as I understand it), the general lack of documentation and 
the widespread existence of undocumented features in the operating 
system products is a substantial barrier to competition raised by 
Microsoft, which was found to be a monopoly. Even if the Internet 
Web browser were to be removed from its position of tight 
integration into the various Windows operating systems, a competing 
browser (Netscape, for instance) would never be able to obtain 
competitive ``facile interoperability'' with other software on the 
computer if that facile interoperability depends in large part on 
otherwise undocumented features of the operating system. No product, 
however well designed and implemented, will be able to offer the 
samme level of ease of use and performance if there are significant 
undocumented features of the operating system such as ther are 
today.
    The essence of the antitrust laws is to preserve competition, 
and nothing in the proposed settlement does this.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Prof. Steve Maxson
    DEpartment of Physics
    University of Colorado at Denver



MTC-00016044

From: Matthew Rechs
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I'm writing to express my concern and alarm at the terms of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement. As a computer software professional, 
a PC owner, and a software and operating systems consumer, I believe 
that the Microsoft monopoly has done a great deal to harm consumers. 
I feel that the remedies proposed by the settlement will fall far 
short of punishing the company for its actions, and fails to deny 
the company the benefits of its illegal behavior.
    Furthermore, the proposed remedy fails to address Microsoft's 
continued use of onerous and restrictive licensing terms. Most 
importantly, it fails to adequately define the many of the terms and 
provisions, to the extent that the company will easily be able to 
avoid many of the most effective consequences of the settlement.
    It is not in the public interest to adopt this settlement until 
these any other problems are resolved.



MTC-00016045

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle as proposed.



MTC-00016046

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle now and move on. This whole trial was ridiculous.



MTC-00016047

From: Gabriel Winter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am a partner and senior developer in a small startup company 
that is developing a web application technology for multiple 
platforms. We are one of many small businesses that are working hard 
to develop retail software products that will provide the industry 
with much needed software innovation. At the moment, we have spent 
hundreds of thousands of our personal dollars to fund the 
development of a technology that will run on multiple operating 
systems using Sun's Java technology. As part of our plan, we are

[[Page 26181]]

targeting a release to the Microsoft Windows family of operating 
systems.
    With the release of Microsoft .NET, and the refusal of Microsoft 
to ally with Sun Microsystems in support of its Java product, the 
Java application support in Windows XP is sketchy at best. Microsoft 
has made it nessesary for our customers on Windows to download a 
Java Plugin from Sun Microsystems for our software to run on that 
system. Due to the application barrier to entry that Microsoft uses, 
there is much industry doubt as to the stability and reliability of 
the Sun Java Plugin for Windows XP.
    This doubt, generated by Microsoft's clear domination of the 
operating systems market, absolutely hinders my company's abilities 
to market our technology to Windows users, effectively cutting us 
out of the Windows desktop market before we have even had a chance 
to get started.
    Microsoft's answer to this is to tell us to develop our 
technology with Micrsoft's .NET tools, which are only supported on 
Windows platforms. By doing this, our product would no longer 
interoperate with other operating systems and web browsers such as 
Netscape Navigator, again, considerable hurting our entry into 
especially the web hosting market which primarily uses Linux and 
Apache servers.
    Microsoft has basically stated that we either comply and conform 
only to their own development technologies, or lose the Windows 
server and desktop markets completely, effectively putting us out of 
business.
    I disagree with the current proposed settlement, becuase I feel 
that it does not provide an adequate ``leash'' on Microsoft. I 
believe that companies with alternative development technologies 
such as Sun Microsystems or Borland be given the same level of 
development support from Micosoft as its own development tools, such 
as .NET, are afforded. Only by doing so will be gauranteed of a safe 
market entry with our own Java based products.
    Thank you!
    Respectfully,
    Andy Carrasco
    CIO/Cheif Software Architect
    Chirasu Corporation
    [email protected]



MTC-00016048

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft has been make a joke at the justice since the first 
indictment in 1993. Now they are punish by keeping the status quo. 
As a monopoply company they control the software market. Next thru 
their software they will control how any hardware will work and they 
will charge the people for that product as they wish. The 
infrastucture of the business sofware is Microsoft. Try to use 
another operation system & a none microsoft suite. I hope you will 
inject more competition is the system then we have now.



MTC-00016049

From: dex dexy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Hundred, even thousands, of 
small companies have ceased to exist over the decades because of 
Microsoft's business practices.
    Similar to the settlement against AT&T, Microsoft should become 
a government regulated Monopoly, until its market share drops to an 
acceptable level (40%, for example, assuming one of it's competitors 
is now also at or above 30%). This must be true for all Microsoft 
product lines, before regulation is lifted. Even after being found 
guilty of being an illegal monopoly, Microsoft's behavior has not 
changed. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, is the only remedy that I 
can see will curtail them. The market must be able to return to a 
state of competition. Imagine the damage to the United States if 
Microsoft were to fail, as Enron failed. The risks of a monopoly are 
greater than merely the loss of competition.
    Thank you for your time.



MTC-00016050

From: David Stokes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to speak out AGAINST the proposed Microsoft 
settlement.
    I am a professional computer system administrator so I am 
familiar with computers and the computer industry. I see the adverse 
effects of Microsoft's monopoly practices on the industry.
    I have read the proposed settlement and I am convinced it does 
not serve the interests of the American public, is harmful to the 
American economy, and does not promote justice given the facts of 
the trial. Another high-tech industry--computer processor chip 
manufacturing-- currently enjoys heated competition between rival 
companies competing on equal footing. As a result consumers have 
enjoyed rapid innovation and lower prices. This competition, and the 
benefits for consumers, does not exist in the computer operating 
system market. As a result consumers wait longer for innovation and 
pay higher prices.
    The DC Circuit ruled that a remedy must ``unfetter [the] market 
from anticompetitive conduct'' and . . . ``terminate the illegal 
monopoly,'' but the DOJ deal does nothing to restore competition 
with Windows. Nor does the settlement contain provisions directed 
towards new markets where Microsoft is using the same bundling and 
restrictive practices to preserve and extend its monopoly.
    Companies that attempt to offer competing products are not given 
a chance to fairly compete. The failure of these companies results 
in lost jobs, lost revenue, and lost activity in the U.S. economy. 
Fair competition is the essence of the free enterprise system. 
Economic history has shown time and again that the absence of fair 
competition is bad for the economy as a whole.
    As a point of justice, a criminal should not be allowed to keep 
his ill-gotten gain. The appeals court has verified that Microsoft's 
activities are illegal. There is nothing in the proposed settlement 
that addresses the issue of these ill-gotten gains, or how these 
will be reimbursed to the public from whose pockets they came. This 
simple omission easily amounts to billions of dollars, and by itself 
makes the settlement a sellout of the public interest, even without 
an assessment of its other shortcomings.
    A better remedy is needed. A more effective remedy would be one 
that required Microsoft to standardize and publicize the entire set 
of Windows APIs and the file formats of its Office applications with 
the express goal of allowing competitors to build Windows software 
applications, and operating systems, that compete with Microsoft on 
a level field.
    The outcome of this case will have a huge effect on the American 
economy for years to come. The proposed settlement will allow 
Microsoft to continue with most of their illegal practices, harming 
consumers and the national economy along the way. A stronger remedy 
will allow competition, and give consumers free choice and better 
prices. Therefore, a stronger remedy than the proposed settlement is 
needed.
    Thank you for the chance to comment.
    David Stokes
    4009 Inwood Drive
    Durham, NC 27705



MTC-00016051

From: Bryan Walker
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please reconsider the proposed settlement with Microsoft. The 
wording that includes only ``for profit'' organizations will limit 
the ability of the open source community to share in the knowledge 
about Microsoft products. Without this it will be impossible to 
produce low cost alternatives to this monopoly.
    Bryan Walker
    Solutions Architect
    Harrah's Entertainment, Inc.
    (901) 537-3851
    [email protected]



MTC-00016052

From: Richard Bullington-McGuire
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: I oppose the Proposed Final Judgement
    The Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. Microsoft does 
not offer adequate relief to the plaintiff and the American people. 
Its definitions of how Microsoft must share API information with its 
competitors are too narrowly tailored.
    It fails to consider Windows-compatible operating systems, and 
allows Microsoft to stifle the development of Open Source software 
by imposing restrictive licensing terms on its APIs and software 
development kits. The definition of Windows is too

[[Page 26182]]

restrictive--it should extend to all Microsoft Win32 API 
implementations, including Windows CE and the Xbox. The settlement 
should address more of the issues raised in the findings of fact, 
including disclosure of file formats that form part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry (See ``Findings of Fact'', ?20 and 
?39).
    A summary of the major defects in the settlement (and some 
proposed amemdments) may be found here:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    Overall, the settlement is not in the public interest and I urge 
the court to reject the Proposed Final Judgement.
    Richard Bullington-McGuire [email protected]>
    Fearless Leader of The Obscure Organization http://
www.obscure.org/>
    PGP key IDs: RSA: 0x93862305 DH/DSS: 0xDAC3028E



MTC-00016053

From: Stuart Stock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Computer Security engineer with 8 years of experience in 
various computing fields. I would like to comment on the Proposed 
Final Judgement (PFJ) Section III ``Prohibited Conduct'' Paragraph E 
regarding the licensing of ``Communications Protocols''.
    This paragraph's intention appears to counter the practices of 
``embrace and extend'' in which Microsoft perverts an industry 
standard protocol by adding proprietary and undisclosed extensions.
    The settlement terms are too vague and too lenient. 
Specifically: ``Microsoft shall make available for use by third 
parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product...any Communications Protocol that 
is...used to interoperate natively (i.e., without the addition of 
software code to the client operating system product) with a 
Microsoft server operating system product. `` This language allows 
Microsoft to hold back key protocols from initial product 
distribution and then provide them as ``Service Packs'', updates, or 
new products bypassing the intent of the above paragraph. More 
disturbing is the separations of ``client'' and ``server'' made in 
the above language. Not all protocols have a client and server 
paradigm, yet they remain important. Peer-to-Peer protocols are an 
excellent example of a fundamental protocol not covered by the above 
PFJ language.
    My proposed revision to Section III.E is:
    ``Starting nine months after the submission of this proposed 
Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use 
by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), all 
Communications Protocols utilized to transmit data to or from a 
Microsoft product.



MTC-00016054

From: David Wiebe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Remedies flawed
    To whom it may concern;
    I believe the remedies are flawed for two reasons:
    1) They do not adequately ensure that Microsoft will follow 
industry standards. As shown in the Findings of Fact, Microsoft has 
repeatedly subverted standards to their benefit with significant 
damage to their competitors.
    2) They do not adequately penalize Microsoft for their actions 
over the past 15 years. I recognize that given the temporal nature 
of software it is very difficult to determine actual damage to 
competitors and their shareholders, but am convinced that Microsoft 
will only change their actions if it affects their bottom line. I 
would have expected some attempt to determine actual damages and 
punitive damages. Somehow Microsoft needs to come out of this suit 
less well off than if they hadn't done the anti-competitive actions 
in the first place.
    David Wiebe
    309 W 11th St.
    Newton, KS 67114
    (316)-284-0578



MTC-00016055

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my reservations regarding the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. Specifically, I am afraid that the proposed 
settlement would not significantly change Microsoft's ability to 
maintain and abuse a monopoly position.
    I would propose that the single best remedy to allow a level 
playing field in the computer software industry would be to require 
Microsoft to publish complete specs of any interface, communication 
protocol, or file format used by Microsoft software that is not a 
format already considered an ``open'' format as documented in an 
RFC.
    I am concered that the language in the proposed settlement at 
this time would discriminate against non-profit groups, and open 
source in general.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Ron Pedde
    401 Isom Road
    Suite 500
    San Antonio, TX
    78216



MTC-00016056

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs !
    I am a student of Computer Science, and a programmer. I write to 
you in order to point out several gross problems with the proposed 
settlement for the Microsfot case.
    According to the Court of Appeals ``a remedies decree in an 
antitrust case must seek to `unfetter a market from anticompetitive 
conduct', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant 
the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure that there remain 
no practices likely to result in monopolization in the future'' 
(section V.D., p. 99).'' The proposed settlement does none of this, 
if anything it further strengthens Microsoft monopoly, and does not 
in any significant way hinder them from continuing their illegal 
bussiness-practices. Nor does it significantly lower the barriers to 
entry.
    I urge you to reconsider this ineffective remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Eivind Kjo-rstad



MTC-00016057

From: Young, Paul
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The following is my complaint against the Microsoft Settlement:
    Failure to address Ill Gotten Gains
    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary.
    Microsoft has profited richly from the maintenance of its 
monopoly. On September 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-
term investments of $36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the 
previous quarter--an accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per 
month.
    It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no 
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history of 
evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices-- practices recognized as illegal by all 
members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of 
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past 
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require 
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative 
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to 
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers? That economic crimes pay!
    Please consider these and other criticisms of the settlement 
proposal, and avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a 
Microsoft antitrust case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly 
juggernaut a sterner message.
    Paul Young
    Webmaster
    NetSolve, Inc.
    http://www.netsolve.com http://www.netsolve.com/>
    [email protected]
    W 512.340.3159

[[Page 26183]]

    M 512.825.7203



MTC-00016058

From: Lee Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am very concerned over the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in 
the Microsoft case. The judgement as it stands neither prevents 
prevoius anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft has engaged in, 
nor adequately prevents them from using large loopholes to justify 
behavior that is supposedly prevented. The specific problems are too 
numerous to fully detail here, but I will outline several as an 
example:
    1) The PSJ includes terms to increase Microsoft's disclosure of 
technical information to Independent Software Vendors. However there 
are a number of obvious shortcomings in the terms:
    a) Microsoft is not required to give any advance notice of 
technical requirements. Middleware vendors are required to meet 
reasonable technical requirements by a set deadline, but nothing 
prevents Microsoft from making last minute changes to the technical 
requirements and claiming that vendors have not met the 
requirements.
    b) Microsoft is required to release documentation for APIs, but 
not before competing middleware vendors are required to meet the 
unspecified technical requirements. Vendors need access to the 
documented APIs in time to use them effectively before the deadline.
    c) The definitions of MS Middleware Product and API are so 
narrow that many crucial elements of the Windows interface could be 
excluded from release, effectively negating the use of the APIs that 
are released.
    d) The restrictions on how the published APIs can be used 
specifically prevents many of the uses that fight against the MS 
monopoly. The APIs can only be used to write Windows-only software, 
not software for Windows-compatible or non-Windows operating system. 
This actually allows MS to --increase-- the leverage of their OS 
monopoly on vendors creating applications.
    e) There are no requirements for MS to release information about 
the file formats being used. The proprietary formats, which are 
changed frequently for little end-user benefit (i.e. Microsoft 
Word), are a signifigant barrier to entry for applications. This has 
not been addressed at all.
    2) The PFJ also does not protect against a number of anti-
competitive tactics MS has used in the past which directly hurt end 
users. Specifically:
    a) MS uses license terms on software that explicitly prohibit 
the use of the software on non-Windows operating systems. This 
license specifically prohibits the use of competing windows-
compatible operating systems.
    This clearly creates a barrier to entry for competing operating 
systems that is based on the MS Windows OS monopoly.
    b) MS has in the past used incompatibilities that are built-in 
to products specifically to disrupt the use of competing products 
(the DR-DOS case). This type of behavior allows MS to create further 
artificial barriers for competing windows-compatible operating 
systems and further extend its monopoly.
    This behavior is not addressed at all in the PFJ.
    These are only a few of the long list of flaws that I see in the 
PFJ, but should be sufficient to demonstrate that the PFJ as it 
stands is simply NOT ACCEPTABLE to either redress the wrongs that 
have been done in the past or to prevent their reoccurrence in the 
future. Though I am not a US citizen the world-wide effect of the MS 
monopoly makes this case of international importance, and I hope 
that my condemnation of this PFJ will be given due consideration.
    Thank you,
    Lee Kennedy
    Product Manager
    Open Text Corporation
    Ottawa, ON Canada



MTC-00016059

From: Alan Grover
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
23 January 2002
    Sirs,
    Under the Tunney Act, I'd like to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft settlement. I have been developing software for more than 
20 years for many operating systems. I personally have experienced 
the difficulties resulting from Microsoft's monopoly and anti-
competitive behaviors, restricting my ability to compete in the 
market place.
    I object to the proposed Microsoft settlement. The clear finding 
of fact (Microsoft is a monopoly) is not addressed by the 
settlement. It allows Microsoft, as an entity, to continue 
unchanged, with minor modifications to it's behavior, and does not 
address the barrier-to-entry.
    In my opinion, it is laughable that the settlement applies only 
to Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP 
Professional. As we saw in the previous consent decree, Microsoft 
merely moves on to the next generation of a product/operating-system 
to evade the restrictions. Microsoft can, and will, avoid the entire 
settlement by merely producing the next version of their operating 
system and renaming it. The finding of the monopoly was based on 
Microsoft's operating system running on Intel hardware, and is thus 
not addressed.
    The manipulation of definitions similarly allows Microsoft to 
avoid meaningful restrictions on API's (limiting it to a few 
specific application-support layers, instead of applying to all 
interfaces between programs and the operating system). Further, even 
the limited definition allows Microsoft to exclude significant 
middleware such as Outlook (as opposed to the more limited, consumer 
oriented, Outlook Express). As well, the new .NET platform, claimed 
to be central to Microsoft's future direction by Microsoft, is not 
included in the settlement.
    The settlement does not appear to address monopolistic practices 
expressed in several Microsoft EULA's (end user license agreements) 
that attempt to lock-out open-source or other free software. Various 
leaked memos have Microsoft identifying open-source, et. al., as a 
competitive solution that they wish to combat.
    Along the same lines, the Microsoft development system 
(Microsoft Platform SDK), used to write programs, attempts to stifle 
competition by preventing the resulting programs from being 
distributed for use with any other operating system (by means of 
placing a license restriction on ``components'' which are required 
to run the programs).
    Finally, the settlement provides an (absence of) enforcement 
mechanism that overwhelmingly favors Microsoft. There is no actual 
enforcement specified in the settlement, leaving it to the legal 
system which will allow Microsoft to use it's huge financial and 
monopolistic advantage to discourage and intimidate any who attempt 
to bring suit.
    The Proposed Final Judgment should not be adopted. A judgment, 
in the public interest (as required), should be written, adopted, 
and enforced. Many others have proposed such judgments.
    For reference, please see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html with further information on many of these points.
    Alan Grover
    awgrover at mail.msen.com
    515 Cherry St.
    Ann Arbor, MI 48103



MTC-00016060

From: Howard Berg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is wrong. Microsoft appears to be avoiding 
federal corporate taxes. Microsoft appears to be illegally retaining 
profits from shareholders. Microsoft appears to be illegally 
distributing a ``End User License Agreement'' (EULA). I request that 
the case be properly investigated, the EULA be required to be 
rewritten, an injunction stopping campaign contributions and other 
bribes distributed by Microsoft, and a Special Prosecutor installed 
to investigate the failure of government officials to enforce the 
current laws when Microsoft is involved.
    Howard Berg



MTC-00016061

From: Marc Midura
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    The proposed Microsoft settlement does not adequately address 
past actions given their severity.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to stop Microsoft's 
predatory practices.
    I urge you to abandon the current settlement and seek measures 
that better fit the situation.
    Thank you for your attention,
    Marc Midura
    Somerville, MA



MTC-00016062

From: Paul Gutwin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 26184]]

    There are several thing wrong with the Microsoft settlement. As 
an engineer/programmer with 20 years experience, I believe the 
restricted definitions of ``API'', ``Microsoft Middleware'' and 
``Windows Operating System'' effectively give Microsoft the legal 
authority to continue the anticompetitive behavior they were found 
guilty of. Specifically, the definition of API allows Microsoft to 
add highly valuable access to the Windows Operating System without 
disclosing this to it's competitors in the vast markets not included 
in the ``Microsoft Middleware'' definition.
    Microsoft in effect sacrifices a few highly mature markets 
(those defined as Microsoft Middleware), for the freedom to continue 
it's anticompetitive behavior in all other markets. This is, at 
best, a phyrric victory for the US Government.



MTC-00016063

From: MARTIN JONES
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs and Madams:
    I wish to comment on the proposed settlement between the Justice 
Department and Microsoft.
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause the public to bear 
increased costs and deny them the products of the innovation which 
would otherwise be stimulated through competition. The finding of 
fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly requires strict 
measures which address not only the practices they have engaged in 
in the past, but which also prevent them from engaging in other 
monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function. It will do 
little to punish Microsoft for it's plainly illegal conduct in the 
past, and virtually nothing whatsoever to prevent future violations 
of antitrust law.
    Thank you,
    Martin K. Jones
    Birmingham AL



MTC-00016064

From: Chris Beattie
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    What is the point to spending millions of dollars to prosecute 
Microsoft, finding them guilty of violating the Antitrust Act, and 
then commuting the sentence to a wrist slap?
    It was demonstrated by the 1995 Consent Decree that Microsoft 
will not find itself burdened enough by such punishment to operate 
according to the fair business practices set forth to protect the 
consumers of this country.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher M. Beattie



MTC-00016065

From: Jeff Otterson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the currently proposed Microsoft anti-trust 
settlement.
    The settlement does not properly address *punishment* for 
Microsoft's anti-competitive practices, which have damaged consumers 
by creating less choice and higher prices for personal computer 
operating systems and applications software.
    I believe that a heavy fine as well as refunds to consumers 
should be added to the settlement.
    Thank you for your careful consideration
    Jeffrey Otterson
    3543 Tritt Springs Way
    Marietta, GA 30062



MTC-00016066

From: mark
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement, and I am not in favor 
of it in its current state. Please consider this a vote against the 
current settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is 
more favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    Mark Reed
    Cincinnati, Ohio



MTC-00016067

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed MS settlement is bad for a number of 
reasons, but one in particular is the restrictive of the EULA and 
how that is being treated by the settlement. Under the current EULA, 
Microsoft APIs are prohibited for use in open source software. Since 
open source software can run on a number of platforms, including 
Linux, Microsoft would be afraid of losing markest share for 
Windows. However, since the EULA prohitbits this, they are stifling 
competition by putting up a barrier of entry in the market and not 
allowing open source projects to use Microsoft APIs. Two such 
products that would greatly benefit are Star Office and Netscape 
Navigator, both of which run on a variety of platforms but are 
stifled in the Windows market because they do not integrate as 
tightly with Windows as MS Office and Internet Explorer. The 
proposed settlement does not address this issue, and therefore does 
not knock down barriers of entry into the Microsoft monopoly.
    As an open source developer, this concerns me greatly. And this 
is only one of a large number of problems with the proposed 
remedies. Microsoft is getting off way too easy, please reconsider.
    Daniel Rabinovitz



MTC-00016068

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive that the current proposed final judgement in the 
Microsft Anti-trust case, as it stands, is a bad idea. The current 
proposal allows Microsoft to continue in it's anti-competitive 
practices.. Microsoft has a history of anti-competive practices as 
shown in the 1996 Caldera V. Microsoft case where a judge found that 
``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH--CENTRAL 
DIVISION Case No. 2:96-CV-645 B) If the current proposal passes, the 
people of this nation will have been done a dis-service by their 
legal system.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Messenger



MTC-00016069

From: Lisa Carr
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft ``settlement'' is a bad deal, not just for the 
United States, but the entire world, as the Windows operating system 
has become a forcibly imposed international standard. And not 
because it is the best operating system, but because Microsoft has 
engaged in criminal behavior--and done so repeatedly.
    Why are we settling for anything less than punishing this 
criminal behavior? The current settlement allows Microsoft to 
basically go about business as usual, while their way of doing 
business has been shown to be unethical and illegal.
    Patent cross-licensing agreements would go a long way towards 
leveling the playing field and encouraging innovation and price 
competition that would benefit consumers in the U.S. and around the 
world.
    Force Microsoft to provide the Windows APIs, immediately and 
without foot-dragging or deception. The oversight required will be 
worth the cost.
    Lisa
    lisa carr
    senior content developer 214.224.1065
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
    http://www.imc2.com/> imc2.com
    7505 john carpenter frwy
    dallas, texas 75247
    214.224.1000
    fax/214.224.1100



MTC-00016070

From: John Holland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I would like to briefly state my opinion about the Microsoft 
Anti-Trust settlement.
    The remedies that have been proposed will have no effect on the 
behavior of this company. The history of their disregard for 
previous consent orders and decrees should make that clear. It 
should also be clear that they are using their monopoly position on 
desktop operating systems to aggressively pursue similiar total 
dominance of other markets such as multimedia transmitted over the 
Internet (``Windows Media Player''), security infrastructures 
(``Passort'') and so on.

[[Page 26185]]

    It may make sense for their to be only one maker of desktop 
operating systems. If so, then that company should be --
effectively-- analyzed and regulated to ensure the needs of its 
customers (consumers and businesses) are being properly served, 
possibly in a manner like for public utilities. Judge Jackson's 
Findings of Fact and the ridiculous behavior of Microsoft in the 
trial (ie the videotape debacle, Gates'' deposition) should make it 
clear that this is a company that needs to be aggressively reined 
in.
    Sincerely,
    John Holland



MTC-00016071

From: M M
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Judge K;
    I am a lawyer by training and profession. As I have read the 
findings of the courts in the Microsoft trials ? and then the PFJ 
offered by the DoJ ? it strikes me that they are not talking about 
the same case or the same company.
    The fact that multiple courts have found Microsoft guilty makes 
it very hard to understand the DoJ's essentially hands-off attitude. 
I understand that this is a Republican administration, but in this 
case they have simply gone way too far in one direction while 
forgetting the rule of law in the other.
    I look forward to your ruling in this important matter.
    Marshall Slayton
    706 Nelson Dr.
    Charlottesville, VA
    22902



MTC-00016072

From: Drew Taylor
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Taylor
    Drew Taylor JA[Pm--pSQL]H
    http://www.drewtaylor.com/ Just Another Perlmod--
perlSQL Hacker
    mailto:[email protected] *** God bless America! ***



MTC-00016073

From: John Engel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir/Madam
    I object to the proposed final judgment in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. It appears to me to do little to remove the 
applications barrier to entry that is the heart of the Microsoft 
monopoly. I strongly object to the term ``for the sole purpose of 
interacting with a Windows Operating System product'' in the 
proposed final judgment. This allows Microsoft to maintain its 
monopoly to the detriment of anyone wishing to use a program written 
for Windows regardless of whether they wish to use the Windows OS 
itself. The problem is the APPLICATION barrier to entry, not the OS 
barrier to entry.
    The final judgment should require Microsoft to publish, not 
license or disclose under NDA, its file formats and communications 
protocols. Let Microsoft earn its dominance by its programs, not by 
the elaborate strategy of vendor lock in and commercial intimidation 
that it uses now.
    Sincerely,
    John R. Engel
    125 Bramble Bush Ln
    Springboro OH 45066



MTC-00016074

From: Stephan Zaniolo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I personally believe the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case is a bad idea and will cause more harm that good. As 
a software developer and security consultant my primary complaints 
are:
--There are no provisions to create competition in the OS market to 
break up Microsoft's illegal monopoly. By allowing firms better 
access to the Windows API's, all that's being done is the Windows 
monopoly is being reinforced!
--There are no provisions to prevent Microsoft from extending its 
Windows monopoly into new markets.
--It does nothing to prevent the practices Microsoft was found to 
have illegally used to maintain it's illegal Windows monopoly.
    Thank you for your time,
    Stephan Zaniolo
    Forest Park, Illinois



MTC-00016075

From: Hatcher, Kelly
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a software engineer with 17 years'' experience developing 
software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd like to 
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    * The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    *  The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    -The definition of API fails to meet the definition actually 
used in the industry by being overly restricitive and limited.
    -The definition of ``Windows Operating System Product'' fails to 
mention all of the ``Operating Systems'' listed by Microsoft on 
their website
    * Windows XP
    Windows XP
    Windows XP Professional
    Windows XP Home
    * Windows 2000
    Windows 2000 Professional
    Windows 2000 Server
    Windows 2000 Advanced Server
    Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
    * Windows Embedded
    Windows Embedded
    Windows CE .NET
    Windows XP Embedded
    Windows XP Tablet PC Edition
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.
    Kelly Hatcher 512.741.1115
    Vignette Austin, TX



MTC-00016076

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    From my perspective, Microsoft has willfully engaged in 
monopolistic practices and must be punished. The proposed settlement 
will do little if nothing to stem this behavior. There are many 
problems. To point out one, Microsoft should have no voice in 
choosing the panel that will be charged with oversight to ensure 
that Microsoft complies with the rulings.



MTC-00016077

From: Tom Daniels
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Disagreement with Microsoft Settlement
    I hereby register my complete disagreement with the proposed 
Microsoft settlement as allowed for in the Tunney Act.
    As Dan Kegel and many others have pointed out, the settlement 
defines many aspects of the Microsoft remedies so specifically that 
it will be trivial for Microsoft to evade them. The needed remedies 
should be broad and have oversight mechanisms that allow for 
``special case'' exceptions after the fact. The barriers to entry 
should be lowered by requiring all API's to be well documented

[[Page 26186]]

and said documentation released for no charge in a non-Microsoft 
controlled format. All file formats used by Microsoft should be 
opened in the same manner. All patents covering API's should be 
spelled out by Microsoft and those not explicitly described and 
linked to an API should not be litigable by Microsoft. Microsoft 
should be required to SELL their operating systems and other 
software instead of licensing it. OEM's should have equal access to 
Windows regardless of size of the OEM. OEM's should be allowed to 
bundle any software with their goods without the control of 
Microsoft whether the computer includes Windows or not.
    Microsoft should have been broken into many more than 2 
independent entities, but it's too late for that!
    Thank you for your time,
    Thomas E. Daniels
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Tom Daniels



MTC-00016078

From: Bryan Carpenter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing even though I have repetitive stress injuries to my 
shoulders and wrists that make it somewhat painful for me to do so. 
I feel that Microsoft's free-market-stifling behavior over a 
significant number of years has had a disastrous effect on the 
ability of innovative Americans to access the American dream which 
is supposed to allow an individual to create a better way of doing 
something, expose his or her creation to consumers, price it at a 
level that gives it a competitive advantage, and make a good living 
from the effort. I am a software developer, and my wife is a law 
student who in her mid-forties is working on her second career after 
being a mostly-full-time mom for 15 years. Both of us have 
significant difficulties almost daily with the Microsoft software 
that we need to use to accomplish our daily work. The reason we have 
these difficulties is simply that Microsoft doesn't care enough to 
get things really right. They don't have to. So users go on year 
after year getting by with poorly-written software while Microsoft 
moves on to the next field that they want to concentrate on 
monopolizing. How does this relate to the proposed settlement?
    The reason why we have to keep using MS software even though it 
is often maddening is because MS has effectively squashed the 
ability of new innovators to have a chance to build their success by 
creating a better product and exposing real users to its advantages.
    I am a rabid advocate of free-market economics, but just as a 
professional football game would turn to mush and be uninteresting 
in the absence of rules and referees, a free-market economy also 
needs rules and referees. Microsoft is the equivalent of a football 
player who uses illegal tactics to seriously injure, maim, and kill 
opposing players while the refs only call him for occasional minor 
penalties and never really give him a reason to change his approach 
to the game.
    Although there are many problems with the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, I would like to concentrate on the continued ability of 
Microsoft to retaliate and/or apply leverage to the OEM's that are 
dependent on MS for the operating system that they realistically 
have to have in order to sell the bulk of their computers. MS should 
not be able to exert any leverage over these OEM's to keep them from 
adding non-MS features and/or products to the computers they sell. 
Sections III.A.2 and III.B of the proposed settlement have 
significant deficiencies that allow MS to continue to strongarm the 
OEM's that buy from them and therefore prevent innovation that has 
the potential to weaken their monopoly.
    I strongly advocate that my Federal government do more than slap 
Microsoft on the wrist at this critical juncture. This is really the 
last opportunity to keep MS from becoming the sole dictator of the 
majority of American's opportunities to innovate and succeed in the 
computer/Internet field.
    Sincerely,
    Bryan Carpenter
    2345 Lake Drive
    Loveland, CO 80538



MTC-00016079

From: Brent Pitts
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    With the deadline for comments approaching, I realized the now 
is the time to make my opinion known. I am a professional software 
developer and use Microsoft products daily, as I have for many 
years. I have become frustrated by Microsoft's declining quality and 
lack of alternate choices for software tools. Because of this I 
would like to register my opposition to the proposed settlement 
which I feel does too little to restore fair competition to the 
marketplace. Once again, I say no to the proposed settlement.
    Thank you,
    Brent Pitts
    Tallahassee, FL



MTC-00016080

From: box010831
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft antitrust case on the grounds that it does not adequately 
protect consumers or redress past misconduct.
    Sincerely,
    DC, U.S. Citizen



MTC-00016081

From: Guy Speier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a terrible idea.



MTC-00016082

From: Matthew Gessner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I'm writing to express my feelings on the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement. Personally, I think that ANY settlement that does not 
involve the breakup of Microsoft, in whole or in part, will not be a 
just settlement for consumers, corporations, or the various 
governments involved. Failing to act against Microsoft at this time 
puts peoples'' jobs and lives at risk. My reasons are below: 
Microsoft has used its monopoly power to push dangerous software on 
millions of unknowing users. The most recent of these incidents 
centers on Microsoft Windows XP, which, as touted by Microsoft, is 
the most secure version of Windows. However, it came to light only a 
few months after its release that Windows XP had a security hole in 
it so large as to allow anyone on the internet to take over a 
Windows XP machine connected to the internet.
    How can anyone NOT see that this company simply does NOT care 
about the products it sells (oh, the exception might be a few 
quality games)? They're aren't motivated to do a better job (to use 
their word, ``innovate''--WHAT A JOKE!) because their is simply too 
little competition. The evidence has been entered in court: when 
Microsoft senses a product that might compete with theirs, they 
either a) buy the company producing the product or b) steal key 
technologies by reverse-engineering the code or c) perform some 
other possibly unrelated action to undermine the desirability by 
cutting their own price on a product. Their monopoly power and 
wealth allow them to undercut other companies'' efforts (I won't use 
the term ``competition'' because Microsoft sadly has very little).
    Additionally, consider how long before Microsoft has products 
that are placed into important, everyday use besides the typical PC. 
With the poor quality of software they produce (which again, is a 
function of little competition), what are the consequences if 
Microsoft manages to use its market pressure to put a product in 
something like a health appliance or an aircraft? I'm not saying 
they have plans to do that, but Microsoft seems to have a pretty 
insatiable appetite when it comes to new market opportunties. 
They've already entered the embedded systems market (systems used 
typically in control applications, like process control, 
telecommunications, etc), and that frightens me a great deal. In 
summary, Microsoft has continually expressed its lack of respect for 
consumers by producing poor quality software, and its lack of 
respect for the law by continual violations of its past agreements. 
Microsoft needs to be broken into little, manageable pieces, none of 
which would be large enough to pose a serious concern to the public. 
THEN they can see how their ``practice'' of their so-called 
``innovation'' will take them.
    Thank you for your time reading this email.
    Regards,
    Matthew Gessner to put the company



MTC-00016083

From: frank delin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The loophole that troubles me most in the proposed remedy in 
this case is the lack of

[[Page 26187]]

any language which prohibits Microsoft from intentionally creating 
incompatibilities in their software that make it difficult if not 
impossible to compete with a similar Microsoft product. This 
practice began as early as the DR-DOS detection routines in early 
versions of Microsoft's Windows OS and has appeared as recently as 
minor, nonfunctional changes in Microsoft's networking protocols 
that disabled compatibility with the Samba interplatform file 
sharing system. As an individual who works in the industry I am 
confounded on an almost daily basis by the inane changes that I must 
acquiesce to in order to make my products compatible with Microsoft 
software such as Internet Explorer's less than standard take on 
concepts such as HTML and javascript.
    I am hopeful that a new remedy might take practices, such as 
those I have outlined, into account to allow for a more competitive 
environment for us all.
    Thank you for your time,
    Frank Delin
    Programmer
    The University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory



MTC-00016084

From: John Jacobsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the Proposed Final Judgement in United States v. 
Microsoft--though a step in the right direction--is deficient in one 
major are: Many important API's and file formats would remain 
undocumented! This is important as an Senior Software Engineer with 
over 12 years of experience. I have been developing applications on 
many platforms and a common thread in the development process is 
understanding exactly what you are trying to make your program 
``talk'' to. If Microsoft is allowed to continue to keep propietary 
standards and API's for their operating system and middleware 
products, it will be increasingly difficult for software development 
companies and independent developers alike to compete with the 
monopoly that Microsoft has created.
    The only true way to solve this problem is to make Microsoft 
document ALL of the API's and file formats that the Windows 
operating system and middleware products use.
    Thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter
    John Jacobsen



MTC-00016085

From: Brody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a very bad idea. How 
deeply into our government do Microsoft's tentacles go?



MTC-00016086

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--bad for US businesses
    Dear DOJ
    I work for a company in the UK, but my story concerns US 
businesses as well, the problems related to Microsoft reach--as the 
Internet--beyond borders.
    1) Only Internet Explorer is available from my PC desktop.
    2) Company IT policy expressively forbids users (i.e. ordinary 
employees) from adding any software products to our PC, hereunder 
browsers.
    3) My company will only install new software if a ``similiar'' 
product is not initially available on the PC, and even then only 
after a series of written ``formalia''.
    4) Effectively this means that there is no way I (as a user) can 
choose to employ products that compete with Microsofts, hereunder 
Netscape. The proposed settlement with MS will not act to improve 
this situation.
    5) When buying av PC for home use, I could choose between all 
kinds of PC producers, several kinds of hard drives, several kinds 
of monitors (standard and LCD) and I could adjust the price by 
including and excluding different choises. All in the same shop! 
That's competition! But only one OS vendor was available, and I 
could not get any lower price by choosing not to buy any of this 
vendors products. Remarkably, MS software was more tightly 
``bonded'' to my PC than any piece of the PC hardware ... The 
proposed settlement with MS will not act to improve this situation.
    6) Appearently, large corporate customers have more of a choise 
than any individual user. However, the proposed settlement will 
allow MS to present even these customers with a contract that 
dictates payment of fees and punitive damages (disgused as 
``increased'' subscription fares) to MS if customers at some point 
decide to test alternatives to any individual Microsoft product. The 
only way out of the racket is to drop all Microsoft products 
simultaneously. Even the mightiest corporations will not dare to do 
this. Any software start-up, offering even the best product, the 
lowest prices and full MS compatibility, will not be able to reach 
their customers under such conditions, unless MS buys them first. 
Obviously, the proposed settlement make a mockery out of the Sherman 
Act.
    best wishes for your work on this case
    J. F.



MTC-00016087

From: Michael Bauer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  8:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I had an early Internet company and believe that Microsoft's 
anti-competitive practices had a material adverse effect on the 
ability of my company to receive adequate financing. I don't believe 
any settlement with Microsoft is appropriate.
    Michael Bauer [email protected] http://www.michaelbauer.com



MTC-00016088

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement, as currently phrased, does not serve the 
consumer's, nor the country's best interest. In my experience (not 
opinion), Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior has reduced 
innovation and resulted in higher prices. A more significant step 
has to be made to keep them from pursuing these practices with 
renewed vigor. Please reconsider the settlement, and level the 
playing field for all US technology companies. thanks,
    Dr. Dylan McNamee
    TrueDisk, Inc.
    [email protected]



MTC-00016089

From: Colin Melville
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    In accordance with ``The Tunney Act'', I would like to comment 
on the current Proposed Final Judgement in the US vs Microsoft Anti-
Trust case.
    1) Microsoft is not being punished for it's anti-trust 
violations. There must be a fine, and it must be in the $B range. 
The fine should also have no purpose other than be contributed to 
the general revenue fund. There must also be progressive fines for 
future violations.
    2) Applications barriers for competing software companies must 
be stricken down with strong language that is not limited to certain 
Microsoft operating systems, as in the PFJ. It must encompass all of 
Microsoft, it's subsidiaries, current and future versions of 
Microsoft operating systems.
    3) All Microsoft API's and middleware should become an open 
standard, with specific requirements to publish these standards 
before releasing new products.
    Mr. Colin Melville (Ind)
    Clayton, Missouri
    Recover, rebuild, revenge!



MTC-00016090

From: Kelsey Edwards
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Men and women of the Department of Justice,
    You have requested public comment before closing the Microsoft 
Antitrust case.
    First, to prosecute any person, or company in this case, under a 
law with no defined standards, under which a person's actions may be 
declared illegal although they were not prohibited before he 
performed them, is a terrible blow to the justice and protection of 
individual rights upon which our nation and legal system were 
founded. Disgruntled competitors can not be allowed to declare the 
actions of a more successful company illegal simply because it was 
successful and they were not. Laws under which such post de facto 
prosecution can take place are more reminiscent of a Fascist regime 
than a free democratic republic.
    Second, I would like to ask you to consider whom you are trying 
to protect. If, in your eyes, prosecuting Microsoft is an attempt to 
protect the average consumer, then I must disagree, both with the 
means and the end. Any average consumer that buys a Microsoft 
product does so voluntarily. For myself, I

[[Page 26188]]

choose to use Windows as opposed to, say, Linux, but I choose to use 
Lotus instead of Microsoft's Word. Microsoft has no power to 
physically compel a person to buy its product instead of a 
competitor's. In actuality, the only institution with the power of 
physical enforcement is the government, and it is through that means 
that Microsoft's less capable competitors wish to shackle them. The 
government has no right to interfere with free trade.
    The last thing I would like you to consider is the broadest 
scope and ramifications of your actions. At a time when we are 
suffering a recession and commentators frequently ask if industry 
will be able to recover, you propose to punish the most successful 
corporation in the nation. What will that do to the economy? 
Further, what message does that send to other large corporations, 
such as General Electric, and AT&T (which has already been 
prosecuted)? It warns them not to be too successful, not to make too 
much money, not to boost the economy too much, not to do their jobs 
too well, because a less successful competitor might cry 
``monopoly'' out of contempt for his own incompetence. And how do 
such businesses know how much is too much? Under such arbitrary laws 
as antitrust, they can't. The Microsoft case should be dismissed. 
The antitrust laws are unconstitutional. The consumers deal with the 
company voluntarily. Economic success should not be punished, but 
rewarded. Microsoft produces life-enriching products that people 
want to buy and supports the nation's economy. It deserves not a 
lawsuit, but a commendation
    Thank you,
    Kelsey Edwards
    Ravenna, OH



MTC-00016091

From: Steve Dockter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I understand that I have the ability to comment on the proposed 
settlement between the Justice Department and Microsoft. I have read 
about the proposed settlement, and I am NOT in favor of it in its 
current state. Please consider this a vote AGAINST the current 
settlement, as well as a vote to seek a settlement that is more 
favorable to Microsoft's competitors.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to correct Microsoft's 
previous actions. There are no provisions that correct or redress 
their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future repetition of 
those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the very foundation 
of law. If a person or organization is able to commit illegal acts, 
benefit from those acts and then receive as a ``punishment'' 
instructions that they cannot commit those acts again, they have 
still benefited from their illegal acts. That is not justice, not 
for the victims of their abuses and not for the American people in 
general.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior has not changed. Regulation of their behavior, 
with the threat of severe criminal penalties for failure to comply, 
is the only remedy that I can see will curtail them. The proposed 
settlement does not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to 
leverage hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against 
competing products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers. The DOJ and US government can put a stop to the 
Microsoft monopoly by forcing them to release their file formats, 
source code, protocols, or something similar that will allow other 
companies to compete with them. The market must be able to return to 
a state of competition.
    Thank you for you time,
    Steve Dockter
    215 Sulky Way
    Chadds Ford, PA 19317



MTC-00016092

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Systems Administrator at a local ISP outside Baton Rouge, 
LA. I have been in IT professionally for 3-plus years, using a mix 
of Windows, NT, Solaris, and Linux. I must object, under the 
provisions of the Tunney Act, to the proposed settlement offer 
extended toward Microsoft. The original ``suit against Microsoft'' 
was all about Netscape's Navigator web browser. Microsoft banned PC 
vendors from installing Netscape onto new PC's and placed their own 
Internet Explorer (ie) logo on the desktop. As a subtle maneuver 
directed at people new to the computer market, ``hortcuts'' from 
non-Microsoft products placed on the computer's desktop bear a small 
white arrow, indicating their role as an artificial pointer to some 
add-on product. Microsoft's ie and Outlook shortcuts were engineered 
to not bear the little white arrow, making them appear built-in and 
native to the OS. Right-clicking a third-party shortcut gives you 
the shortcut's properties: where it leads to, what sort of screen 
environment it runs in. Right-clicking a Microsoft shortcut gives 
you the application's properties: connection type, advanced 
settings, email accounts, home page. These may appear small thing, 
but they present a profound psychological influence on new computer 
users that is not beyond the intentions of Microsoft.
    Microsoft has made their Office product's file formats a moving 
target for competing developers for years. This would not have been 
such an issue, had their not been prepackaged bundling of Office 
onto retail PC packages, built-in compatibility with the Wordpad 
application provided free with Windows, and so on. Working in an 
all-Solaris department, I once received memos and timesheets in 
digital formats from my HR and Payroll departments as .doc and .xls 
documents. Without Microsoft's Word and Excel products (I probably 
just violated a trademark by typing that...), I could not open my 
company's own communication. Had they been web-based or in plain 
text or in some easily translatable format that other applications 
could open, I would not have had the problem. It's not about whether 
I get Granny's letter or pictures, it's about whether I bundled or 
purchased Office to open the file formats that were included with 
her machine. If she were sending me encrypted pictures of her 
nuclear sub, I'd understand, but this is common ``plain text'' 
messaging. It shouldn't be any more difficult or expensive to read 
than the text on a pager.
    MSNBC offers versions of its news-update application for Windows 
and Macintosh, but the End User License Agreement (EULA) states that 
the applications MUST be run on a version of the Windows operating 
system. As an internet systems admin, I face the routine task of 
cleansing my server logs from intrusion and denial-of-service (DoS) 
attacks. Nearly 100% of these attacks are searches for ``winnt/
cmd.exe'' or ``winnt/root.exe'', leftover from the CodeRed and Nibda 
worms. Their IIS product (web server) has been inherently vulnerable 
and insecure since day one, and there have been only an endless 
stream of patches and quick fixes to deal with it. Producing a 
product that is secured by default has not been a priority. The 
inclusion of automatic application execution, ActiveX controls, and 
Visual Basic scripting in their Outlook mail program has only served 
to exacerbate the problems by enlarging the base from which these 
worms can operate. Granted, my apache (www.apache.org) web server, 
open sourced and developed with security in mind, has never suffered 
from these attacks directly, but my drives fill up with log files 
recording each ill-gotten request they must answer. I'm certain 
you've heard most of this before, but I had to make my voice heard. 
Credit http://slashdot.org for reminding me that the Tunney Act 
comment period was expiring. I will be a co-signer of Dan Kegel's 
open petition, hosted online at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html, to see this proposed settlement redeveloped with some 
actual teeth to solve the problems that were originally brought to 
court in the first place... like smaller firms coming up with better 
ideas, being barred from inclusion in retail PC's until they're 
starved and bought out, then having their ideas ``innovated'' into 
Windows as Windows-only software products.
    John Beamon
    Systems Administrator
    Baton Rouge, LA
    [email protected]



MTC-00016093

From: John Holcomb
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    I dissagree with the definition given for API by Definition A. 
As a software Developer, I believe ALL Windows APIs should be 
disclosed, thus all operating system interfaces for application 
programs should be made public. Thus the current PFJ definition for 
API is not sufficient, since the interfaces between Microsoft 
Middleware and Microsoft Windows are possibly only a subset of all 
Windows APIs.
    If all operating system interfaces were made public and 
documented this would take the edge away from Microsoft, but also 
allow all developers, not just Microsoft engineers with special 
knowledge of system APIs, to create programs that use the

[[Page 26189]]

Windows OS more efficiently, thus giving the end users a better 
product experience.
    John Holcomb



MTC-00016094

From: Don J. Rude
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Don J. Rude, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Owner of Steem, LLC 
(www.steem.com) I am writing to say that I will stand as a co signer 
of Dan Kegel's open letter to the DOJ. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html There are many problems with the way Microsoft has 
conducted themselves over the years and I feel that the PFJ is 
inadequate and often inaccurate. I greatly appreciate Dan Kegel's 
work on his letter. If I had confidence that my letter would be 
thoroughly read by the DOJ I would freely express my own opinions 
and understanding of this case but instead I feel resigned to simply 
co sign this open letter and hope that the Mr. Kegel's work is more 
effective than my own voice. I feel I must also say ``Thank You'' to 
Jeremy White for his call to action:
    http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunney.html
    Don J. Rude C.T.O.
    V 301-208-1658 x11 F 301-208-1930
    Build your world. http://STEEM.com



MTC-00016095

From: Douglas Barnes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I first started programming computers in 1979, and I have been 
involved with the computer industry in one way or another for most 
of my career. I have used and programmed for Microsoft products 
since the early releases of DOS. I've also used and programmed for a 
wide range of other operating systems, and I worked as a developer 
of Unix-based operating systems for IBM and Tandem (now Compaq). In 
addition, I have co-founded a number of companies here in the 
California Bay Area, including C2Net Software, which is now part of 
Red Hat. I recently changed careers and I am now working as a 
litigation paralegal and preparing to go to law school. The trial 
court has ruled that Microsoft committed serious violations of anti-
trust law, and this decision has been upheld in its initial appeal. 
Moreover, nobody disputes that previous attempts to restrain 
Microsoft failed utterly. Clearly it is necessary to go beyond the 
type of remedy used previously in order to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing its anti-competitive behavior. The executives at 
Microsoft are extremely clever people, and their cleverness is 
hardly confined to solving technical problems--they have proven 
exceptionally adept at wriggling out of legal restrictions as well.
    Given Microsoft's history and the rapdily changing nature of 
technology, it is very doubtful that you can craft a remedy that 
will have any effect absent close supervision by persons committed 
to the intent of the remedy In addition, the current proposed 
remedy--even ignoring issues of enforcement and supervision--is full 
of loopholes that Microsoft can (and certainly will) drive a truck 
through.
    I am attaching the draft of an essay by Dan Kegel that I have 
reviewed and strongly agree with. It is somewhat technical and 
dense, but this is a technology company that you're attempting to 
restrain. In my opinion, he does an excellent job of showing that 
the proposed remedy doesn't even accomplish what it sets out to 
accomplish. Please reconsider the current settlement. It is 
abundantly clear that if you do not fashion a better remedy than the 
current proposal, Microsoft will continue to break the law with 
impunity.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas Barnes
    [email protected]
    5529 Kales Ave.
    Oakland, CA 94618
    On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft 
Contents
    a.. Introduction
    b.. Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
    a.. How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', and ``Windows 
OS'' be defined?
    b.. How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier 
to Entry?
    c.. How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    d.. What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
    e.. Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    f.. Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
    g.. Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
    h.. Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
    i.. Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
    c.. Strengthening the PFJ
    a.. Correcting the PFJ's definitions
    b.. Release of information to ISVs
    c.. Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
    d.. Prohibition of More Practices Toward ISVs
    e.. Prohibition of Certain Practices Toward End Users
    d.. Summary
    Introduction
    As a software engineer with 20 years'' experience developing 
software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd like to 
comment on the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft.
    According to the Court of Appeals ruling, ``a remedies decree in 
an antitrust case must seek to `unfetter a market from 
anticompetitive conduct', to ``terminate the illegal monopoly, deny 
to the defendant the fruits of its statutory violation, and ensure 
that there remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in 
the future'' (section V.D., p. 99) .
    Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to agree; he called the 
proposed settlement ``strong and historic'', said that it would end 
``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' and said ``With the proposed 
settlement being announced today, the Department of Justice has 
fully and completely addressed the anti-competitive conduct outlined 
by the Court of Appeals against Microsoft.'' Yet the Proposed Final 
Judgment allows many exclusionary practices to continue, and does 
not take any direct measures to reduce the Applications Barrier to 
Entry faced by new entrants to the market.
    The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft has a monopoly on 
Intel-compatible PC operating systmes, and that the company's market 
position is protected by a substantial barrier to entry (p. 15). 
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft is liable 
under Sherman Act ? 2 for illegally maintaining its monopoly by 
imposing licensing restrictions on OEMs, IAPs (Internet Access 
Providers), ISVs (Independent Software Vendors), and Apple Computer, 
by requiring ISVs to switch to Microsoft's JVM (Java Virtual 
Machine), by deceiving Java developers, and by forcing Intel to drop 
support for cross-platform Java tools.
    The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a 
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition 
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final 
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier 
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
    In the following sections I outline the basic intent of the 
proposed final judgment, point out areas where the intent and the 
implementation appear to fall short, and propose amendments to the 
Proposed Final Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns. Please 
note that this document is still evolving. Feedback is welcome; to 
comment on this document, please join the mailing list at 
groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or email me directly at dank-
[email protected]. Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment In crafting 
the Final Judgment, the judge will face the following questions:
    a.. How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', and ``Windows 
OS'' be defined?
    b.. How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier 
to Entry?
    c.. How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    d.. What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
    e.. Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    f.. Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
    g.. Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
    h.. Which practices towards end users should be prohibited? Here 
is a very rough summary which paraphrases provisions III.A through 
III.J and VI. of the Proposed Final Judgement to give some idea of 
how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions: PFJ Section III: 
Prohibited Conduct
    1.. Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs who support 
competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), or Outlook 
Express (OE).
    2.. Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges the 
top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.

[[Page 26190]]

    3.. Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders.
    4.. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer 
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and OE, so that competing 
web browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly 
to Windows.
    5.. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network 
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems 
to connect to Windows servers.
    6.. Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or OE.
    7.. (Roughly same as F above.)
    8.. Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, 
WMP, WM, and OE, and let them designate competing products to be 
used instead.
    9.. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    10.. This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having 
to do with security or copy protection. PFJ Section VI: Definitions
    1.. ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined as 
only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs.
    2.. ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as Internet 
Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), 
Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    3.. ``Windows Operating System Product'' is defined as Windows 
2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional. The 
agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows: Microsoft 
agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let competitors 
interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty payments. 
Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed terms of 
the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:
    a.. Is the Proposed Final Judgement in the public interest? In 
the sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ deals 
with the above questions. How should terms like ``API'', 
``Middleware, and ``Windows OS'' be defined? The definitions of 
various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ from the definitions in 
the Findings of Fact and in common usage, apparantly to Microsoft's 
benefit. Here are some examples: Definition A: ``API''
    The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the interfaces 
between application programs and the operating system. However, the 
PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the interfaces between 
Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, excluding Windows APIs 
used by other application programs. For instance, the PFJ's 
definition of API might omit important APIs such as the Microsoft 
Installer APIs which are used by installer programs to install 
software on Windows.
    Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''
    The Findings of Fact (? 28) define ``middleware'' to mean 
application software that itself presents a set of APIs which allow 
users to write new applications without reference to the underlying 
operating system. Definition J defines it in a much more restrictive 
way, and allows Microsoft to exclude any software from being covered 
by the definition in two ways:
    1.. By changing product version numbers. For example, if the 
next version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead of 
``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed Microsoft Middleware by the 
PFJ.
    2.. By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its 
middleware. For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of 
Windows which was only available via the Windows Update service, 
then nothing in that version of Windows would be considered 
Microsoft Middleware, regardless of whether Microsoft added it 
initially or in a later update. This is analogous to the loophole in 
the 1995 consent decree that allowed Microsoft to bundle its browser 
by integrating it into the operating system. Definition K: 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' Definition K defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), 
Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger 
(WM), and Outlook Express (OE).
    The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET is 
questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET and 
C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would expect 
Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition. The inclusion of 
Outlook Express and not Outlook is questionable, as Outlook 
(different and more powerful than Outlook Express) is a more 
important product in business, and fits the definition of middleware 
better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are deveoped for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.
    Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''
    Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems. 
Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, 
windows XP Professional, and their successors. This purposely 
excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition and Windows CE; many applications written to the Win32 APIs 
can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and 
Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be run on Pocket 
PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/
tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the next-generation 
mobile business PC, and it will be available from leading computer 
makers in the second half of 2002. The Tablet PC runs the Microsoft 
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and features the capabilities of 
current business laptops, including attached or detachable keyboards 
and the ability to run Windows-based applications.'' and
    Pocket PC: Powered by Windows
    Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and 
Pocket PC in places (e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) 
currently served by Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be 
trying to evade the Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one 
example of how Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final 
Judgment by shifting its efforts away from the Operating Systems 
listed in Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating 
System that can run Windows applications.
    How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry? The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in 
two ways:
    1.. By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    2.. By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the 
use of non-Microsoft middleware.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used ``for 
the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System 
Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the information for the 
purpose of writing operating systems that interoperate with Windows 
programs.
    How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It does provide for the creation of a 
Technical Committee with investigative powers, but appears to leave 
all actual enforcement to the legal system.
    What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
    The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements
    Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of competing 
middleware to meet ``reasonable technical requirements'' seven 
months before new releases of Windows, yet it does not require 
Microsoft to disclose those requirements in advance. This allows 
Microsoft to bypass all competing

[[Page 26191]]

middleware simply by changing the requirements shortly before the 
deadline, and not informing ISVs.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented
    The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' and ``API'' means that Section III.D.'s requirement to 
release information about Windows interfaces would not cover many 
important interfaces.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation
    ISVs writing competing operating systems as outlined in Findings 
of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty understanding various 
undocumented Windows APIs. The information released under section 
III.D. of the PFJ would aid those ISVs--except that the PFJ 
disallows this use of the information. Worse yet, to avoid running 
afoul of the PFJ, ISVs might need to divide up their engineers into 
two groups: those who refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only 
applications; and those who cannot refer to MSDN because they work 
on applications which also run on non-Microsoft operating systems. 
This would constitute retaliation against ISVs who support competing 
operating systems.
    5. File Formats Remain Undocumented
    No part of the PFJ obligates Microsoft to release any 
information about file formats, even though undocumented Microsoft 
file formats form part of the Applications Barrier to Entry (see 
``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed
    Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license 
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (perhaps in the style proposed by the W3C; 
see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-patent-policy-20010816/#sec-
disclosure). This leaves Windows-compatible operating systems in an 
uncertain state: are they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft 
software patents? This can scare away potential users, as 
illustrated by this report from Codeweavers, Inc.:
    When selecting a method of porting a major application to Linux, 
one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a competing implementation 
of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit called `MainWin'. MainWin 
is made by Mainsoft, and Mainsoft licenses its software from 
Microsoft. However, this customer elected to go with the Mainsoft 
option instead. I was told that one of the key decision making 
factors was that Mainsoft representatives had stated that Microsoft 
had certain critical patents that Wine was violating. My customer 
could not risk crossing Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I 
didn't even have a chance to determine which patents were supposedly 
violated; nor to disprove the validity of this claim.
    The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, 
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems.
    Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system. Section III.B. requires 
Microsoft to license Windows on uniform terms and at published 
prices to the top 20 OEMs, but says nothing about smaller OEMs. This 
leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against smaller OEMs, including 
important regional `white box'' OEMs, if they offer competing 
products.
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For instance, 
Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based on the 
number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems sold by 
that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly 
on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share 
in other areas, such as office software or ARM-compatible operating 
systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas. Which practices towards ISVs should be 
prohibited? Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with popular non-
Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples are given 
below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source 
applications The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states
    ... you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in 
conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly 
Available Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, 
or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software 
that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. 
Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly 
Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed 
or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); ... Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are 
shipped by Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable 
components. Applications that wish to use them must include the add-
ons, even though they might later become a standard part of Windows. 
Microsoft often provides those SDKs under End User License 
Agreements (EULAs) prohibiting their use with Open Source 
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their 
applications under Open Source licenses; they must hope that the 
enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the addon API 
installed, which is often not the case. Applications potentially 
harmed by this kind of EULA include the competing middleware product 
Netscape 6 and the competing office suite StarOffice; these EULAs 
thus can cause support problems for, and discourage the use of, 
competing middleware and office suites. Additionally, since Open 
Source applications tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating 
systems, any resulting loss of market share by Open Source 
applications indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems
    The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, 
is the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: ``Distribution 
Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the Redistributable 
Components... provided that (a) you distribute the Redistributable 
Components only in conjunction with and as a part of your 
Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...'' This makes it illegal to run many programs built with 
Visual C++ on Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems. Which practices towards large users should be 
prohibited? The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses 
its products to OEMs, but not on how it licenses products to large 
users such as corporations, universities, or state and local 
goverments, collectively referred to as `enterprises'. Yet 
enterprise license agreements often resemble the per-processor 
licenses which were prohibited by the 1994 consent decree in the 
earlier US v.
    Microsoft antitrust case, in that a fee is charged for each 
desktop or portable computer which could run a Microsoft operating 
system, regardless of whether any Microsoft software is actually 
installed on the affected computer. These agreements are 
anticompetitive because they remove any financial incentive for 
individuals or departments to run non-Microsoft software. Which 
practices towards end users should be prohibited? Microsoft has used 
both restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities to 
discourage users from

[[Page 26192]]

running Windows applications on Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems. Two examples are given below.
    1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems
    MSNBC (a subsidiary of Microsoft) offers software called 
NewsAlert. Its EULA states ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right 
to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers 
running validly licensed copies of the operating system for which 
the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; 
Microsoft Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.]. 
...''
    Only the Windows version appears to be available for download. 
Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can 
run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of 
NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this. MSNBC has a valid interest 
in prohibiting use of pirated copies of operating systems, but much 
narrower language could achieve the same protective effect with less 
anticompetitive impact. For instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you 
the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your 
computers running validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or 
compatible operating system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems
    An episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively.
    Microsoft's original operating system was called MS-DOS. 
Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the operating 
system. Digital Research offered a competing operating system, DR-
DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run programs 
written for MS-DOS. Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating 
systems per se, but rather middleware that used the DOS API to 
interoperate with the operating system. Microsoft was concerned with 
the competitive threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta 
copies of Windows 3.1 so it would display spurious and misleading 
error messages when run on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor 
company, Caldera, brought a private antitrust suit against Microsoft 
in 1996. (See the original complaint, and Caldera's consolidated 
response to Microsoft's motions for partial summary judgment.) The 
judge in the case ruled that
    ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no 
court has fully explored the alleged conduct.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software.
    Is the Proposed Final Judgement in the public interest?
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows:
    a.. The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible 
competing operating systems
    a.. Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by 
using restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. 
Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this 
part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    b.. The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions 
and Provisions
    a.. The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, 
but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered.
    b.. The PFJ supposedly allows users to replace Microsoft 
Middleware with competing middleware, but it defines ``Microsoft 
Middleware'' so narrowly that the next version of Windows might not 
be covered at all.
    c.. The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    d.. The PFJ supposedly applies to ``windows'', but it defines 
that term so narrowly that it doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, or the X-Box--operating systems that 
all use the Win32 API and are advertized as being ``Windows 
Powered''.
    e.. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    f.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to 
ISVs so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible.
    g.. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
    h.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    i.. The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    c.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft
    a.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.
    b.. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Windows apps from running on competing operating systems.
    c.. Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system-- even for 
computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned 
by the 1994 consent decree.)
    d.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Intentional Incompatibilities 
Historically Used by Microsoft
    a.. Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional 
incompatibilities in its applications to keep them from running on 
competing operating systems.
    e.. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs
    a.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    b.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small OEMs 
-including regional `white box'' OEMs which are historically the 
most willing to install competing operating systems--who ship 
competing software.
    c.. The PFJ allows Microsoft to offer discounts on Windows 
(MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like sales of Microsoft Office or 
Pocket PC systems. This allows Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on 
Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its market share in 
other areas.
    f.. The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. Considering these problems, one must conclude 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as written allows and encourages 
significant anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay 
the emergence of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. 
Therefore, the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public 
interest, and should not be adopted without addressing these issues.

Strengthening the PFJ

    The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the 
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have 
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems 
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from the 
PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar to 
elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes. In the sections 
below, I suggest amendments to the PFJ that attempt to resolve some 
of the demonstrated problems (time pressure has prevented a more 
complete list of amendments). When discussing amendments, PFJ text 
is shown indented; removed text in shown in [bracketed strikeout], 
and new text in bold italics.

Correcting the PFJ's definitions

    Definition U should be amended to read
    U. ``Windows Operating System Product'' means [the software code 
(as opposed to source code) distributed commercially by Microsoft 
for use with Personal Computers as

[[Page 26193]]

Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, 
and successors to the foregoing, including the Personal Computer 
versions of the products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, 
service packs, etc. The software code that comprises a Windows 
Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft in its 
sole discretion. ] any software or firmware code distributed 
commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing any subset of 
the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion Windows 2000 
Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional; Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC 2002, and successors to the 
foregoing, including the products currently code named ``Longhorn'' 
and ``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, bug 
fixes, service packs, etc. Release of information to ISVs TBD 
Section E should be amended to read
    ... Microsoft shall disclose to ISVs, IHVs, IAPs, ICPs, and 
OEMs, [for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product,] for the purpose of interoperating with a 
Windows Operating System Product or with application software 
written for Windows, 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. ...

Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs TBD

    1. III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended 
to read
    2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a 
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System 
Product; or ... Prohibition of More Practices Toward ISVs TBD 
Prohibition of Certain Practices Toward End Users TBD

Summary

    This document is not yet complete, but it does demonstrate that 
there are so many problems with the PFJ that it is not in the public 
interest. It also illustrates how one might try to fix some of these 
problems.
    Dan Kegel
    21 January 2002
    Return to ``On the Remedy Phase of the Microsoft Antitrust 
Trial''



MTC-00016096

From: Thomas Keitel
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I feel that the settlement between the United States and 
Microsoft should not go forward. Microsoft is a company that 
leverages it's incredible bulk and power upon fledging industries 
and companies and has no peer and no challenger other than the 
United States government. I have seen many of my personal choices as 
a consumer limited due to Microsoft's ``Embrace and Extend'' farce 
of a philosophy. The protocols are open, yet there is no 
competition. Does this not make anyone with the ability to remedy 
the problem concerned?
    Why can you not buy an Intel PC compatible product with an 
operating system other than Microsoft Windows preinstalled? Simply, 
because Microsoft has closed those doors to the competition 
illegally leveraging it's market position to strong arm PC 
manufacturers.
    Kind Regards,
    Thomas Keitel



MTC-00016097

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I have been working in the software industry for three years as 
a Java software developer, and have been writing software for around 
seven years. I have been using Microsoft products (often by choice, 
often only by sheer necessity because of the de facto standard it 
has become), from DOS 4.0 in 1989, through Windows 2000. For as long 
as I've been using Microsoft products, Microsoft has shown its 
flagrant disrespect for the competitive marketplace, from snuffing 
out competitors to its DOS and Windows operating systems (e.g. Dr. 
DOS, OS/2), by engaging in predatory, secret, non-disclosable OEM 
deals to prevent OEMs from shipping alternative products, by 
engaging in ``embrace-and-extinguish'' practices to consume and 
later kill emerging threatening technologies (e.g. Java), and by 
intentionally introducing incompatibilities in its products which 
either make it difficult for competing third party applications to 
run, make it difficult for its protocols and formats to be reversed 
engineered for the sake of compatibility, or keep consumers 
upgrading needlessly. In parallel, Microsoft has shown a likewise 
lack of concern for the multitudinous security problems that have 
plagued its products, only recently claiming to be sincerely 
interested in security now that viruses and worms based on insecure 
but ubiquitous Microsoft products are flooding the net. Just 
recently the FBI became worried enough about a security flaw in 
Microsoft Windows XP, that it issued an alert. Microsoft's pitch of 
web services is even more worriesome, in that Microsoft may end up 
holding the personal information of millions of users who patronize 
web sites which are based on Microsoft PassPort and HailStorm.
    In light of Microsoft's behavior I think that the Proposed Final 
Judgement is not sufficient. It is too weak, and too ambiguous and 
leaves Microsoft plenty of room to exploit loopholes (details at: 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). It is nothing more than a 
slap on the hand. The software industry has seen a steady stifling 
of innovation, whereas before Microsoft's dominance it was diverse 
and fertile. We cannot bring back all the technologies, companies, 
or bright ideas Microsoft suppressed, but we can do the right thing 
in evening the playing field again, by rejecting the Proposed Final 
Judgement, and revising it to close many loopholes, clear up 
ambiguities, and once again make the marketplace competitive.
    Thank you,
    Aaron Hamid
    Ithaca, New York
    Java Applications Developer
    Cornell University



MTC-00016098

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed settlement 
and my support of the ``hold out states''. The settlement would be a 
reward for Microsoft, not a remedy, by imposing ``the Microsoft 
way'' on America's children. Education is one arena where Microsoft 
does not dominate, but this settlement would expand their monopoly 
power into a market where it did not previously exist. This is bad 
for all of Microsoft's competitors, such as Apple and RedHat, and 
the court should not be in the business of putting Microsoft's 
competitors out of business. Please to not sacrifice our children to 
the evil empire.
    Regards,
    Michael L. Love
    MacCHESS
    Cornell University
    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/



MTC-00016099

From: Albertson, Brett
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I disagree with the proposed remedy of the Microsoft Anti-trust 
trial. This remedy would seem to extend, not limit, Microsoft's 
Monopolistic power. Any remedy should inately *decrease* their 
Monopolistic power. Maybe an alternative would be to make Microsoft 
fund billions of dollars worth of *competitors* softare, such as 
Apple, Linux, and StarOffice. That would be a remedy which would 
increase competition at least. Or even better, would be to break 
Microsoft into two companies: Operating Systems and Applications. 
The Operating System business would then be enjoined from entering 
into any other business ventures outside of the Operating System 
arena. thank you,
    Brett Albertson
    Senior Research Analyst
    Strategic Technologies
    vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n pevzvany gunaxf gb gur QZPN.
    [email protected]
    voice (919) 379-8449
    fax (919) 379-8100



MTC-00016100

From: Jeff Nathanson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't think enough has been done to prevent Microsoft from 
future anti-competitive practices. It would be good to see a 
settlement which assures competition in

[[Page 26194]]

the OS and browser markets, as well as in other software which 
Microsoft sells. --
    Jeff Nathanson
    [email protected]
    voice: (954) 660-2434
    http://www.metrolink.com/
    Metro Link, Inc
    5807 North Andrews Way
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309



MTC-00016101

From: Jeff Easter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Re: Tunney Act comments
    Dept of Justice:
    I wanted to make a coment on the proposed ``final settlement'' 
of the Microsoft Antitrust Trial. I am a Unix system administrator, 
and have been involved in the computer industry for the last 6 
years. In saying that, I also feel I am no more nor less qualified 
to make comment on this settlement than any other citizen. I see 
several problems with the settlement, but the most troubling are the 
extremely narrow definitions that have been agreed to when defining 
what pieces of Microsoft's software, code, and product line will be 
affected. I think it will be all to easy for them to change a 
version number here, a name there, and continue to monopolize the 
market as they have always done, and will continue to due unless the 
DOJ steps in and applies real restrictions to them.
    Thank You for your time and consideration.
    Jeff Easter
    PO Box 11813
    Chandler, AZ 85248
    480-649-0333



MTC-00016102

From: nosettlement@ mem.mailshell.com@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is an extremely bad idea for a multitude 
of reasons. Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language 
against not-for-profits. These include Apache, Perl, PHP, Sendmail, 
Samba and the like. All could be excluded because the language says 
that it need not describe nor license API, Documentation, or 
Communications Protocols affecting authentication and authorization 
to companies that don't meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: 
``...(c) meets reasonable, objective standards established by 
Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and viability of its 
business, ...''
    Section III(D), concerning middleware, again allows Microsoft to 
exclude Open Source vendors entirely and the US government. There 
are a large number of other failures in the proposed settlement. I 
oppose it strongly.



MTC-00016103

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a discrace. It doesn't punish 
Microsoft in any real way at all, and will allow this juggernaught 
to continue to stomp out innovation and real competition.
    I sincerly hope this slap on the wrist isn't the final 
solution...
    Thank you,
    --Jeff C.
    [email protected]



MTC-00016104

From: Benjamin Trent
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe that the proposed settlement is sufficient due 
to the vague outline regarding enforcement. I think there should be 
a more definite structure in place concerning how this settlement 
will be enforced before it is finalized.



MTC-00016105

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a US citizen, I support and endorse the Microsoft Settlement, 
and encourage the US DOJ to resolve this matter quickly. Thank you.
    Ralph S. Thomas
    Product Technical Support
    Sprint LTD I.T. Field Services
    Desk: 913-345-6808
    PCS: 816-309-6440
    Mail: KSOPKJS102
    Mailto:[email protected]



MTC-00016106

From: Aaron Manela
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern,
    In accordance with the Tunney act I wish to complain that the 
proposed settlement in the Microsoft case is not in the public 
interest, or even in the economic interest of this nation.
    I work in the IT industry, and I know from personal experience 
that Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior has cost businesses 
across this nation huge sums of money.
    The proposed settlement lacks effective enforcement. It fails to 
enforce anticompetitive licensing terms, intentional 
imcompatibilities in the Windows OS's, discriminatory behavior 
against OEMs and open source software.
    It fails to prevent predatory monopoly practices in the future.
    The Proposed Final Judgement also uses definitions of the 
Windows ``API'' that leave out many Microsoft Windows products which 
are part of the Microsoft Monopoly.
    Microsoft should be broken up into at least two entities, one 
for the OS and one for the applications. Anything short of this will 
simply allow Microsoft to continue its business as usual policies.
    Thank You,
    Aaron Manela
    1329 Creekside Drive
    Charlottesville VA 22902



MTC-00016107

From: Don Davis
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Regards,
    Don Davis / Tel: 937.235.0096



MTC-00016108

From: C. Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern (anyone who wants a tested reliable 
product):
    I do not believe that allowing Microsoft to ``donate'' $1 
billion worth of computers and software is a fair punishment. Apple 
Computer, for example, dominates the education market. Allowing 
Microsoft to enter this education market without competition , but 
as a ``punishment'', is ludicrous. This costs Microsoft nothing, and 
only serves to strengthen their grip. The problem here is you have 
an entire country (globe?) now conforming to one standard (Wintel). 
You cannot change this. However, crippling someone who does not play 
fair by threatening the weak, is an option. You have to hit them 
where it hurts--TAKE THEIR CASH. In light of the recent filing by 
AOL/TimeWarner, I hope Microsoft is punished for the illegal 
strategies it used to push Netscape (a superior product at the time) 
out of the market.
    C. Schmidt



MTC-00016109

From: Khalid Qureshi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Micro$oft $ettlement
    Dear DOJ-
    I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement as it does 
nothing to change the way that Microsoft illegally opresses 
innovation through it's predatory practices.
    The problem is not totally that Microsoft is quite large and 
it's software is well distributed, but that they use their size and 
market penetration to enforce practices designed to hurt 
competitors. There was ample evidence of these practices in the 
Anti-Trust trial, in which Microsoft was found guilty of being a 
monopoly and using unfair tactics to assure that it remained so.
    For example, the open-source SAMBA project implements a network 
interface allowing non-Microsoft operating systems to connect to 
computers running Microsoft Windows operating systems for the 
purpose

[[Page 26195]]

of moving files, distributing email, and sharing printers, among 
other things. This project has lead to incresed adoption of non-
Microsoft operating systems within corporations. This is a threat to 
Microsoft, so they are changing the protocol WITHOUT providing any 
details on how the protocols will change.
    Add to the this the new draconian liscencing scheme which 
requires companies to upgrade software or face harsh penalties by 
Microsoft, an you can see that Microsoft is using its size to push 
all non-Microsoft products out of the market place. This is the 
problem with Microsoft, and one that the USDOJ has chosen not to 
address.
    These tactics continue even as we speak because the USDOJ caved 
into pressure to basically drop the case. I am ashamed of the DOJ 
for the way that they ``settled''. Many economists, laywers, 
computer industry specialists, and computer users have poured over 
the document and found that the ``settlement'' amounts to this:
    Promise to be nice for at least five years, and if not, then we 
will send someone to look after you, and this person will not have 
access to any of your code and will thus be unable to gauge the 
impact of your business decisions. Effectively, we will do nothing 
but have a symbolic post to address your practices.
    It was a great Christmas present to Microsoft, but a signal to 
the Computer Industry that the Goverment is not willing to enforce 
any real remedy. That is why nine states (I am ashamed to say that 
my state, OHIO, did not participate) did not join the 
``settlement'', and scores of companies (most recently Netscape/AOL) 
have brought suits against Microsoft. The Goverment has shown 
incredible cowardice, and people are dissatisfied and will not take 
that cowardice for for a true settlement.
    Please implement a fair remedy for the good of the computer 
industry. I use Linux, and I love it because it provides what I 
need, including interoperability with Microsoft products. At work, I 
am forced to use Microsoft because of the liscencing structure and 
the closed (i.e. Word *.doc and Powerpoint *.ppt) formats. Open 
these formats, and at least the engineering staff would jump at the 
chance to switch from the bug-ridden Microsoft Windows systems to a 
more robust and cheaper alternative ... like Linux. This cannot 
happen unless Microsoft is made to open the only thing that keeps 
them a monopoly--not good products, but closed formats pushing 
others out of the way.
    Thank you for your time,
    Khalid Qureshi
    Cincinnati, OH



MTC-00016110

From: Douglas Rowe
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This settlement is very bad and does little to remedy the real 
problems in Microsoft's business practices.



MTC-00016111

From: Rob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hash: SHA1
    This Proposed settlement is not in the best interests of the 
public nor business at large.

--The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems
    Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to Entry by using 
restrictive license terms and intentional incompatibilities. Yet the 
PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even contributes to this part of the 
Applications Barrier to Entry.
--The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions
    The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret APIs, but 
it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many important APIs are not 
covered. The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with .NET. The 
PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET with 
competing middleware.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation--but 
prohibits competitors from using this documentation to help make 
their operating systems compatible with Windows.
--The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms currently 
used by Microsoft
    Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing terms to keep 
Open Source apps from running on Windows.

    Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even for 
computers running competing operating systems such as Linux! 
(Similar licenses to OEMs were once banned by the 1994 consent 
decree.) I also agree with the problems identified in Dan Kegel's 
analysis (on the Web at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html).
    G. Robert Mattix
    502 Dartmouth Lane
    Allen, Texas 75002
    214-547-8551
    [email protected]



MTC-00016112

From: Brandt Deakin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the input of the public can be crucial to the 
democratic process, and I think that the proposed settlement is a 
bad idea.
    Brandt Deakin
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00016113

From: Brent Cook
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it Concerns,
    I have read the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust 
trial and am opposed to it. The settlement does not remedy the 
actions currently being committed by Microsoft, nor does it inhibit 
its ability to commit similar actions in the future. Many of the 
provisions are vaguely worded and do little to reduce Microsoft's 
status as a monopoly.
    For instance, provision C.3 states that Microsoft may restrict 
any OEM licensee from automatically launching at boot time any 
product that has a user interface of similar size and shape to a 
user interface provided by a Microsoft Middleware Product. This 
provision does not prevent Microsoft from producing a product that 
matches the size and shape of any other vendor's product, thereby 
excluding its inclusion as an automatically launched product by an 
OEM. Skinning technology such as that used in Microsoft Media Player 
would suit this purpose well for Microsoft. I have the utmost 
concerns, however, with section J.1. This section prohibits a Final 
Judgement from requiring Microsoft to document, disclose or license 
to third parties portions of APIS or Documentation or portions or 
layers of Communications Protocols that would ``compromise security 
of a particular installation or group of installations of anti-
piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights management, 
encryption or authentication systems...'' This provision allows 
Microsoft to prevent product interoperability with any third party 
vendor's product which provides security, digital rights management, 
anti-virus, encryption, communication or authentication services. In 
short, Microsoft is under no obligation to provide documentation for 
APIs required for any other product to share files, play digital 
media, communicate, authenticate or interoperate with any future 
Microsoft Operating System, Application or Middleware.
    Please consider this my vote against the proposed Microsoft 
antitrust settlement and my vote for a stronger, more specific 
settlement that opens Microsoft to competitors and eliminates its 
monolopy status.
    Brent Cook
    1801 S. Lakeshore Blvd. #104
    Austin, TX 78741



MTC-00016114

From: Rod Richeson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current settlement between the United States 
Government and Microsoft Corporation, specifically Section III(J)(2) 
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.'' For this settlement to 
be fair Microsoft should not be making decisions on the openness of 
the API, but allow all interested parties to use calls previously 
unavailable to them, but available to Microsoft applications
    Thanks You,
    Rodney S. Richeson
    Hillsboro, OR



MTC-00016115

From: Don Davis

[[Page 26196]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to give my comments on the Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I believe this settlement is counter to the interests of 
the American public, deleterious to the American economy, and not 
adequate given the findings of fact in the trial.
    Microsoft's anti-competitive practices are counter to the law 
and spirit of our free-enterprise system. These practices inhibit 
competition, reduce innovation, and thereby decrease employment and 
productivity in our nation. Microsoft's monopolistic practices cause 
the public to bear increased costs and deny them the products of the 
innovation which would otherwise be stimulated through competition.
    The finding of fact which confirmed that Microsoft is a monopoly 
requires strict measures which address not only the practices they 
have engaged in in the past, but which also prevent them from 
engaging in other monopolistic practices in the future.
    It is my belief that a very strong set of strictures must be 
placed on convicted monopolists to insure that they are unable to 
continue their illegal activities. I do not think that the proposed 
settlement is strong enough to serve this function.
    Regards,
    Don Davis / Tel: 937.235.0096



MTC-00016116

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I believe the proposed settlement with Microsoft will not reduce 
their predatory behavior. I propose two further additions.
    1. Microsoft ought to be required to open all file formats so 
that third-party applications will be able to view and edit them in 
a FULLY functional manner.
    2. Microsoft ought to be prohibited from charging more for its 
products ``off the shelf'' than it does to original equipment 
manufacturers. Without these two restrictions, the problem is not 
solved.
    Regards,
    Eli Dourado



MTC-00016117

From: Keith D Wissing
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive the proposed settlement to the Microsoft anti-trust 
case is a bad idea. It leave too many terms define in ways that will 
allow Microsoft to continue their anti competative behavior.
    Keith D. Wissing
    [email protected]>
    [email protected]>



MTC-00016118

From: Michael Johnsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Copcern:
    I would like to submit these comments on the Proposed Final 
Judgement in United States v. Microsoft.
    As a long-time computer user, I operated a Bulletin Board System 
(BBS) for several years in the mid-80's and currently maintain a 
couple of websites. I use computers daily, and have extensive 
experience with a variety of platforms and software systems.
    I am astounded that after found guilty of what Attorney General 
Ashcroft says is ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' in operating a 
monopoly, the remedy solution in the Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) 
fails to BEGIN to address serious issues and practices. After 
reading Dan Kegel's (and many others in a wide range of media) 
points about some of the failures in the PFJ, even if 1/3 of these 
concerns are legitamate I am astounded at how weak this ``remedy'' 
is worded. There are holes in here Microsoft can drive a tractor 
trailer through. The wording doesn't include Windows XP??? 
Obviously, this was composed by someone sympathetic to Microsoft or 
by someone who doesn't have a clue. The lack of punishment here is 
laughable and only adds to the appearance that the legal process is 
corrupt. On behalf of the American legal system, I suggest you 
address these probelms, or you set the example that breaking U.S. 
laws results in no punishment- not a good example for our youth, 
Microsoft, or future monopolisitic companies.
    Thanks for your consideration of my brief comments.
    Michael Johnsen



MTC-00016119

From: Aaron Sakowski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I have read about the proposed settlement and am against it in 
it's current state. I feel that it is very weakly worded and 
requires unsubstantial concessions from Microsoft. Please consider 
this as my vote against the proposed settlement.
    Aaron Sakowski
    2489 Overlook Rd., 211
    Cleveland, OH 44106
    ...and I know that if I'm going to have any life anymore it's 
because I'm still willing to fight and die for that inch. Because 
that's what living is. It's the six inches in front of your face.
    --Tony D'Amato (Al Pacino)
    Any Given Sunday



MTC-00016120

From: [email protected]
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 10:32 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea. Please consider requiring 
Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces 
between software components, all communications protocols, and all 
file formats as a possible solution.
    Sincerely,
    William Turner, Ph.D.



MTC-00016121

From: W. Chris Shank
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed Microsoft settlement is a very bad idea. I 
am a computer professional (BS Computer Engineering from Penn State, 
software engineer by profession) so I see negative effects of 
Microsofts dominance every day. I urge you to reject this settlement 
for one that actually punishes Microsoft and opens the industry to 
competition. For some reason, it is thought that Microsoft was the 
main driver behind the technological economic boom of the late 90's, 
when in fact we experienced a technological economic boom due to the 
innovation of the internet and world-wide-web, in spite of 
Microsoft. Microsoft has never been on the leading edge of 
technology. The consistently reinvent the wheel and claim Eureka! 
Opening the market to competition will allow the technical community 
to really innovate which will in turn spur the economy. Please 
consider my concerns and reject the settlment.
    Thank you,
    William ``Chris'' Shank
    1560 Greenlawn Rd
    Paoli, PA 19301



MTC-00016122

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I belive that the current proposed final judgement in the 
Microsft Anti-trust case, as it stands, is a bad idea.
    The current proposal allows Microsoft to continue in it's anti-
competitive practices.. Microsoft has a history of anti-competive 
practices as shown in the 1996 Caldera V. Microsoft case where a 
judge found that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that 
the incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme 
by Microsoft.'' (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH-- 
CENTRAL DIVISION Case No. 2:96-CV-645 B)
    If the current proposal passes, the people of this nation will 
have been done a dis-service by their legal system.
    Thank you,
    Matthew Messenger
    10122 copeland dr
    Manassas VA, 20109



MTC-00016123

From: Josh Staiger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.

[[Page 26197]]

    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Josh Staiger



MTC-00016124

From: Whitehead, Myron MD
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement Comment
    Hello,
    I just wanted to take this opportunity to express my opinion 
regarding the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement. In my 
opinion, the proposed settlement falls well short of what is needed. 
In fact, in many ways, it may actually facilitate Microsoft's 
monopoly position by integrating Microsoft software products into 
the educational system even earlier and more than they currently 
are. We need competition and choice in the operating system 
marketplace; Microsoft has been shown to use unfair practices and a 
substantial part of their current success is reasonably attributed 
to those unfair practices. The proposed settlement is, at best, an 
annoyance for Microsoft, and, at worst, an ally in sustaining their 
stranglehold on the operating system market.
    Sincerely,
    Myron E. Whitehead



MTC-00016125

From: Jason Pellerin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed final judgement is nothing more than a rehash of 
the 1995 consent decree. It fails in numerous ways:
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html
    to restrict Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly. It should also be 
remembered that it was Microsoft's failure to comply with the 1995 
consent decree and the conduct remedies therein, that caused the US 
to begin the current case. A structural remedy is required in this 
case:
    Microsoft must not be encouraged to obey the law, it must be 
rendered incapable of breaking it.
    The proposed final judgement is not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Pellerin



MTC-00016127

From: M.A.DeLuca
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Having considered the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the 
Microsoft antitrust case, and speaking as a computer industry 
professional who has been actively engaged in the technology since 
before the rise of Microsoft, I would like to offer the following 
comments:
    The PFJ does --not-- address key issues of the monopolization 
violations affirmed by a unanimous 7-0 Court of Appeals in June 
2001. It is my understanding that Microsoft's violations of 
antitrust law are beyond question and that legal action taken at 
this point should be intended to curtail any effort by Microsoft to 
continue with these activities. Thus, as an industry professional, I 
oppose the proposed settlement.
    Despite the rejection by the Court of Appeals of Microsoft's 
petition for rehearing on how Microsoft unlawfully maintained its 
monopoly with contractual tying and middleware bundling, the 
proposed Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement does nothing to 
address this issue.
    The settlement makes no effort to restore competition in the 
Operating System (OS) market that Microsoft monopolized unlawfully. 
Recommendations from the DC Circuit ruled that a remedy must 
``unfetter the market from anticompetitive conduct'' and ``terminate 
the illegal monopoly.'' Proposed solutions included source code 
licensing and provisions to allow OEMs (Original Equipment 
Manufacturers) to make changes to the OS itself, yet the settlement 
does nothing to address the issue.
    The current version of Windows XP engages in the same predatory 
practices that are harmful to competition as earlier versions were 
to Netscape. There is no indication that, despite having engaged in 
unlawful behavior, Microsoft has changed their practices to compete 
in the market lawfully. There is no protection against favorable 
pricing deals to OEMs that support Microsoft policies or the 
``commingling of code'' that the Court of Appeals claims violated 
the Sherman Act.
    The settlement gives Microsoft the ability to stifle 
competitors'' legitimate access to interoperability data by allowing 
Microsoft too much flexibility to withold information for security 
reasons. This could have disasterous consequences for the burgeoning 
open source software movement in general, and Microsoft's most 
likely competitive rival, the Linux OS, in particular.
    Microsoft also has, under the terms of the settlement, 
participation in the Technical Committee overseeing compliance with 
the settlement. A committee which works within Microsoft's 
headquarters, is paid by Microsoft, and which cannot tell the public 
how well Microsoft is complying with the settlement!
    In short, Microsoft has repeatedly demonstrated a tendency to 
employ creative means of circumventing or delaying legal action, and 
yet this PFJ is riddled with opportunities for Microsoft to continue 
to abuse its monopoly and further impede competition in the IT 
industry. It does little or nothing to address Microsoft's unlawful 
practices, ill-gotten gains, or restrict continued similar behavior.
    Did Microsoft write this document?
    Michael A. DeLuca II
    3415 W. Mill Road
    Hatboro, PA 19040



MTC-00016128

From: Matt Giger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I disagree strongly with the proposed settlement of the 
Microsoft case. It is a travesty that they, a corporate entity, is 
allowed to effectively kill other corporate entities, be found 
guilty and just play legal and political hardball to get off without 
any realistic punishment or even serious oversight.
    It is as if a murderer was given a slap on the wrist and a 
reloaded gun at his trial. The Department of Justice has a 
responsibility to enforce *all* of the laws that it was created to 
enforce, not the ones that are politically expedient.
    Matthew Giger
    President
    Lunar Software, Inc.
    PO Box 14664
    Portland, OR 97293
    [email protected]



MTC-00016129

From: James F. Schmitz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am not impressed with the proposed settlement at all. This 
isn't even a slap on the wrist to Microsoft and they are laughing 
all the way to the bank and back. Please reconsider.
    James F. Schmitz
    IT Manager



MTC-00016130

From: scott coughlin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft tries 
but fails to demand that Microsoft do more to open up its APIs to 
competitors. The fine print makes it clear that Microsoft could 
pretty much continue with business as usual.
    A more effective remedy would be one that required Microsoft to 
standardize and publicize the entire set of Windows APIs and the 
file formats of its Office applications (another key to Microsoft's 
monopoly ``lock-in'')--with the express goal of allowing competitors 
to build Windows software applications, and operating systems, that 
compete with Microsoft on a level field.
    Please consider this when making your decision.
    Thanks,
    Scott Coughlin
    p.s. the text of this letter was taken from the article that 
Scott Rosenberg wrote in Salon.



MTC-00016131

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:44am

[[Page 26198]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that the proposed Microsoft settlement falls short in 
many ways. Firstly, I agree with Dan Kegel's comments in his open 
letter, which I am sure you have and which is available at: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    I do not see such a provision in the revised proposed Final 
Judgment, but I would also like to say that any offer by Microsoft 
to ``give'' Microsoft products to schools is in fact a transparent 
attempt by Microsoft to preserve and extend their software monopoly 
rather than an effective remedy for their past and current 
monopolistic practices.
    Mark Gray
    Atlanta, GA



MTC-00016132

From: Agris Taurins
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Simply put, the purposed settlement in the Microsoft vs DOJ is 
bad.
    Since Microsoft has been convicted of violating the anti-trust 
act, it needs to be actually punished for doing so. The purposed 
settlement can barely be considered a slap on the wrist, let alone a 
punishment. Furthermore, I can see very little in the proposed 
settlement that will actually rectify Microsoft's predatory business 
practices.
    I'm advocating that Microsoft be run out of business, but 
neither should they profit from a ``punishment''. Punishment should 
be just that, something that is unpleasant and perhaps painful.
    Agris Taurins
    5101 South 54th Street
    Lincoln, NE 68516



MTC-00016133

From: John Forr
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement idea for the Microsoft case 
is a bad idea.
    John Forr
    New Cumberland PA



MTC-00016134

From: Robert Stromberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed final judgment in US vs. Microsoft. I 
feel the damage Microsoft has done to the software and OS 
marketplace is incalculable, and the proposed settlement does little 
to correct it. I don't feel the settlement levels the playing field 
for competing operating systems or office software, and would like 
to see a much stronger penalty imposed. The proposed settlement does 
not sufficiently relieve Microsoft of the ability to leverage 
hardware and computer manufacturers unfairly against competing 
products, nor does it adequately open the Windows API to 
programmers.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Stromberg
    Riverton, UT



MTC-00016135

From: Chad Hurley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to add my comment that I think the Microsoft 
settlement is a bad idea. This settlement will allow a large 
corporation to buy their way out of trouble and continue their 
dishonest practices as in the past.



MTC-00016136

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am against the proposed settlement. The Proposed Final 
Judgement is not in the public interest. Simplistic restrictions 
that fail to perceive or deal with the infrastructural nature of 
Microsoft's products are ineffective.
    We are in a situation where Microsoft's products are a monopoly 
because the products have become a national infrastructure. The 
ubiquitous nature of the Microsoft operating system makes its use 
similar to the requirements to drive on roads or speak on a 
telephone in order to engage in effective commerce. Obviously roads 
are good; a common language is good. However, abusive monopolistic 
control of roads or control of language is bad.
    Think back to the days when our country built paved roads. If 
one company had dominated that process, owned all the roads and 
controlled access to them, controlled the business allowed to 
operate next to them, that situation would be comparable to the 
software world with Microsoft today. That road-owning company would 
have controlled which gas stations were allowed, what they were 
allowed to charge for gas, etc. The road company could license 
roadside lots only to stores that sold products approved by the road 
company.
    Microsoft has built a railroad or a toll road system. It is 
ubiquitous and they control the access. Because of the monopoly 
nature of Microsoft's products, people cannot engage in effective 
commerce without using the ``roads'' Microsoft has built.
    A piecemeal approach does not correct the problem. Any approach 
that focuses on one product or practice is comparable to focusing on 
the national road company at one intersection. Perhaps you force a 
reduction in tolls along one stretch of highway. The road company 
raises tolls elsewhere. You force the road company to allow stores 
nationwide to sell coffee. The road company starts giving away 
coffee with each toll paid.
    The judge didn't think of forbidding the road company from 
giving away coffee and, if she had, the road company would've done 
something slightly different but equally effective. As long as the 
road company is not restricted to roads, there are too many options, 
too many ways to attack and respond, for overly-specific 
restrictions to be effective.
    The problem is that the road company does not focus solely on 
roads. In real life, the building of roads is considered important 
enough that, although companies are paid to build them, no company 
owns them. With only a small percentage of exceptions, the people, 
represented by their governments, own the roads.
    Consider another example that is appropriate here only because 
Microsoft is in a monopoly situation. Most people in this country 
use English to communicate. They depend upon the language. They 
invent new words or use words in new contexts as needs arise. 
However free they are to invent new words or use other languages, 
they must rely on using basic English when engaging in commerce.
    Because of its monopoly, Microsoft's operating system software 
is comparable to the English language in this context. To the extent 
that people use computers to communicate, whether via email to their 
mother or via inventory software to communicate how many widgets are 
in stock to their purchasing department, that usage is similar to 
using English to communicate the same information via telephone or 
in person. They rely on the constructs built from language--human or 
machine - to communicate.
    Imagine if one company owned the English language and could 
place enormous restrictions upon its use. The thought seems 
ridiculous but the similarities are strong.
    Railroads, roads and English comprise an infrastructure whose 
use is, by virtue of a monopoly, a requirement for commerce in the 
USA. Microsoft's monopoly software comprises a national 
infrastructure, one that is written in computer languages and is 
used by people to communicate.
    Simplistic restrictions that fail to perceive or deal with the 
infrastructural nature of Microsoft's products are ineffective. Road 
companies shouldn't control every roadside business. No company 
should have any control over language used for commerce. Microsoft 
should not be able to place restrictions on the use of their 
products.
    Specifically: Microsoft's Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA 
prohibits distribution with Open Source software; yet it is Open 
Source software that offers the best alternatives to Microsoft 
Software. The DOJ proposal does nothing to correct this. In all 
instances, Open Source and any other product offering an alternative 
to Microsoft's software must be allowed to interoperate with 
Microsoft's. People must be allowed to mix and match Microsoft's 
software with other software in any and all fasions, unrestrained by 
Microsoft's ideas about what is appropriate. Period, for all 
products in all situations, until a period of time after the 
monopoly has ended.
    The proposed settlement fails to require advance notice of 
technical requirements. API documentation is released too late to 
help ISV's. Many important API's would remain undocumented. 
Unreasonable restrictions are placed on the released documentation. 
File formats remain undocumented. Patents covering the Windows API 
remain undisclosed. Innovative competition undoubtedly will come 
from smaller companies and yet smaller OEM's aren't given the same 
protections as the top 20 OEM's.
    Microsoft discriminates against ISV's who target Windows-
compatible operating systems. Microsoft uses license terms which

[[Page 26199]]

prohibit the use of their products with Windows-compatible operating 
systems. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems.
    The Proposal Final Judgement is not in the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Jeff Caldwell
    348 W. Crestview Avenue
    Boalsburg, PA 16827



MTC-00016137

From: Christian Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't really know that much about the current state of the 
DOJ's case against Microsoft, but as the UNIX System Administrator 
at a small liberal arts college in St. Peter, MN, I know that 
Microsoft has certainly made my life difficult on multiple 
occasions. It is next to impossible to inventory licenses for 3000+ 
Windows machines, and all it takes is one disgruntled person on our 
campus to make a call to the Business Software Alliance, a Microsoft 
backed organization, and we get slapped with an audit (which we have 
to pay for, no less!).
    Also, Microsoft's refusal to publish thorough APIs for things 
such as their implementation of the SMB protocol prevent prevent 
other operating systems from being fully integrated with the 
``Microsoft'' part of our network. SAMBA, the open-source 
implementation of the SMB protocol works great for most things, but 
Microsoft keeps changing something with each new release of Windows 
that breaks SAMBA. A month or two after later, the SAMBA team 
usually has reverse engineered Microsoft's changes so everything 
works great again, but 2 months is not a trivial wait! If Microsoft 
was forced to publish good APIs for their products and protocols, I 
have no doubt that free, open source, GPL software such as SAMBA 
could and would provide a much higher and more immediate level of 
compatibility with MS products.
    Same story with Microsoft's line of Office products. 
Compatibility providing products for Linux such as AbiWord and 
StarOffice generally have no trouble reading MS-Word formatted 
documents, as long as the MS-Word document was created with an older 
version of MS-Office.
    Microsoft intentionally obfuscates the way MS-Office writes 
documents so that competing products will not be able to properly 
render MS-Word documents. Again, reverse engineering of Microsoft's 
products eventually leads to compatibility with open source and free 
products, but the wait can be prohibitive. If Microsoft would simply 
publish their APIs, products like StarOffice could be re-written to 
be compatible *while* MS-Office is being written, not *after* it has 
been released.
    Thanks for your time, I hope my input will be useful during this 
comment period provided by the Tunney Act. Also, please make sure 
that you can verify the source of comments. I wouldn't put an 
attempt to fake support past certain groups.
    Chris Nielsen
    Unix Administrator
    Gustavus Adolphus College
    [email protected]
    (507) 933-7064
    IT Department
    800 W. College Ave
    St. Peter, MN 56082



MTC-00016138

From: jay ball
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To The Justice Department,
    I would like to express my concern that Microsoft is essentially 
receiving a slap on the wrist for illegal deeds performed that are 
more ominous that those done by Standard Oil a hundred years ago. I 
do hope that Microsoft is both punished and must pay retribution to 
the level of their crimes.
    In reading the Proposed Final Judgment, I find that it abounds 
with narrow definitions and gaping loopholes. Here I present some of 
the points which stuck out to me:
    The settlement still does not solve the problem of people and 
small businesses being forced to purchase Microsoft Windows along 
with a new computer even though I and others will never use it. 
Their EULA forbids me from upgrading my computer by taking the 
operating system from the old machine and installing it on the new 
machine. The settlement specifically allows Microsoft give OEM 
discounts based on the quantity of other Microsoft products that 
they offer. So, for a computer manufacturer, it makes sense to only 
offer only Windows. On a similar note, Microsoft's enterprise 
license system bills by the number of computer which could run 
Windows, not by the number of systems that actually do run Windows. 
So, to use the enterprise scheme, you still have to pay for a 
Windows license on any Linux or x86-Solaris machine. This was banned 
once in 1994 by the consent decree, but it is no longer enforced. 
What other consent degrees has Microsoft violated? The settlement 
does not apply to any Pocket PC, Ultimate TV, or X-Box operating 
system although all claim to be ``powered by Windows'', use the same 
32bit API, and can share many files. The X-Box for instance is a PC 
with the same DirectX Graphic, Sounds, and general Windows APIs and 
Microsoft has even advertised it as being very easy to program since 
it is just like Windows. But, it is not covered under the 
settlement.
    The definition is paraphrased as application software that 
itself presents a set of APIs which allow users to write new 
applications without reference to the underlying operating system. 
Microsoft Java is middleware, but Microsoft.NET and C# are 
advertised as the next generation Java--yet they are not middleware. 
Outlook Express is middleware, but a program which does the exact 
same thing and has a larger API interface, Outlook, is not 
middleware. And what about Office? For me to run some software, I am 
required to have a certain DLL included with Office but not Windows. 
A DLL by definition is middleware, yet Office's DLLs do not apply. 
Why are some obvious products excluded from being middleware?
    For there to truly be competition, Microsoft needs to publish 
and release the file formats of Office. Office has a near monopoly 
on any written document, however it runs only on Microsoft's 
operating systems (x86 Windows and Pocket PC Windows). Microsoft 
bundles Windows and Office for many OEMs. For any company to enter 
the business OS space, they need to offer a Office+OS bundles when 
Microsoft can extend and expand Office to run only on Windows at 
anytime (like Windows 3.1 on DR-DOS). However, if Office's file 
formats were public, other companies could make a compatible version 
of Office and offer a non-Microsoft groupware+OS solution.
    In the arena of 3D graphics, Microsoft's DirectX does have some 
good competition, OpenGL. However, just this month (Jan-2002), 
Microsoft purchased all of the patents on OpenGL. Will Microsoft now 
crush this competitor by suing them out of existence? Microsoft has 
used threat of patent violation lawsuit in the past to drive 
competition out of business or to force others to not even create 
their product.
    But, what patents does Microsoft own and to what products does 
think they apply to? The settlement should address patent-product 
disclosure. Enforcement does not exist in the document. A technical 
committee can supervise and recommend, to what end? Another five 
year trial? Penalties, restriction, and yes, even criminal 
incarceration is needed to prod this company into following the law 
and their own agreements.
    In closing, I am sure others put similar complaints more 
elegantly, but I am sorely disappointed in the proposed settlement. 
As a Software Engineer, I can see myself how to get around many of 
restrictions that will be imposed. Might I suggest, in addition to 
the restrictive with ``letter of law'' of which the document is 
comprised, the proposal should add a plain English ``spirit of law'' 
section stating what this document is trying to accomplish. That 
way, the common person will know when Microsoft violates us again.
    Jay Ball
    Senior Software Engineer
    US citizen, Hoboken, NJ



MTC-00016139

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to inform you that I am displeased with the 
settlement brought about against Microsoft. In fact, ``against'' 
almost feels like the wrong word. As it is worded now, the 
settlement proposed could actually help microsoft retain their 
monopoly for future years. I agree with the statements laid out on 
this page: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html and feel that at 
least a few, if not all of these items be considered when there is 
to be a new proposed settlement against microsoft.
    In this time of economic downturn, we can not let a monopoly to 
continue to stife the market and overcharge for services.
    Thank you for your time.
    James Markson
    Digital Graphic Artist
    San Antonio, TX

[[Page 26200]]



MTC-00016140

From: Jeff Messner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the Proposed 
Final Judgment in the US v Microsoft antitrust case. I've been a 
professional software engineer since 1995 and have experience 
developing software on a variety of operating systems, including 
Windows. In my qualified opinion, Microsoft's current status as a 
monopoly has caused unimaginable harm to the advancement and 
innovation of software technology. In my unqualified opinion, I 
think this monopoly has caused unimaginable harm to the economy of 
this country, and the entire world. Microsoft was indeed found 
guilty in this case, therefore, the monopoly must be brought to an 
end.
    If the PFJ is anything but the most absolutely watertight, 
loophole-free document, Microsoft's infinite riches will pay for the 
most brilliant legal minds to help them wiggle out of any 
restriction it seeks to impose. And given Microsoft's behavior 
during the trial, we all know that they will do this without shame. 
I'm very concerned that the current PFJ will fail to prevent this 
from happening. Rather than detailing my specific concerns, I 
instead refer you to this webpage which serves as an adequate proxy 
to my concerns. http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Regards,
    Jeffrey D Messner



MTC-00016141

From: drox
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future.
    The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    J. Mark



MTC-00016142

From: duncan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the microsoft settlement is a terrbile thing. i dont 
have a solution... i think thier solution that offers software and 
hardware that is valued at what they say it is, only furthers thier 
monopoly and helps them penetrate one more market, one that they 
have had a struggle with, schools.
    please fight for freedom, in this case.
    duncan shannon



MTC-00016143

From: M Carling
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inadequate because because every 
provision contains gaping loopholes. I will choose just one to 
illustrate: The requirement to publish APIs is of little value 
without a similar requirement to publish document formats. Document 
formats are the more important interoperability interface. 
Additionally, exclusion of ``security'' APIs renders the requirement 
completely valueless. Publishing well-engineered security APIs in no 
way compromises their security. M Carling CEO, Codeworks



MTC-00016144

From: Jeff Strang
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed Microsoft Antitrust settlement is not a sufficient 
remedy for the injustices Microsoft has engaged in and is a bad 
idea.
    Thanks and regards,
    Jeff Strang



MTC-00016145

From: John Robert Arras
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I am writing to you about the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. I do not believe the company should be broken up, but 
certain steps should be taken to make sure that neither Microsoft 
(nor any other company) can hold people hostage to their whims, and 
they should not be able to prevent other people from expressing 
their thoughts or writing their own software.
    Microsoft should be able to add whatever it wants into its 
operating system, and it should not have to disclose source code to 
anyone.
    However, it should be forced to sell its OS at one price to 
anyone who wants it, and once functionality is in the OS, it must 
not be removed or downgraded. Microsoft should also be able to sell 
``server'' OSes for more money if they have more functionality, but 
again the software should be available to anyone who wants it at a 
single price.
    The following two things are more general thoughts that apply to 
Microsoft, but which can be abused by anyone. Their existence can 
allow any software maker to exert too much control.
    Another danger is the movement from single-time payments for 
software to software rentals or ``software as a service''. 
Companies, including Microsoft, should not be able to declare that 
their software is only available for rental because that gives them 
too much power over customers. They can shut off the software at any 
time. This is too much power for something as essential as an OS, 
Microsoft should be forced to sell the software at a reasonable 
price. (No more than several times the yearly rental rate.)
    Another weapon that Microsoft might be able to use is the 
software patent. If software patents continue to exist and if 
Microsoft gets their other avenues of control shut off, they may be 
able to use patents to prevent people from writing software. If 
Microsoft can get enough patents on core ideas, they can prevent 
smaller companies from making competing software products. This is a 
problem with the whole software patent system in that it is not 
possible to make nontrivial software without violating some patents. 
Thus, a small company that wants to make software cannot stop 
Microsoft from stealing their ideas because Microsoft can hold 
patents on so many core technologies that they can just shut down 
the little company. Using software patents, a small company can make 
Microsoft stop making a single product, but Microsoft can make a 
small company stop producing its only product.
    The only way software patents help the little guy is if the 
little guy isn't making software. If he is merely getting patents 
and then never doing the actual work of making software (since 
software patents are just vague descriptions of software without the 
actual work and details (source code) necessary to allow someone to 
implement the algorithms) then he can drain money from companies 
doing the actual work. However, this isn't the same thing as making 
software.
    It is my hope that implementing some or all of these ideas will 
keep Microsoft from controlling too much of the software industry.
    Sincerely,
    John Arras



MTC-00016146

From: Brian Moore
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi,
    The proposed settlement to the Microsoft antitrust case will do 
little (and very possibly nothing) to prevent Microsoft from 
behaving exactly as it has in the past. The proposal as it stands 
will not seriously effect Microsoft's ability to use it's functional 
monopoly through the Windows operating system to give it illegal 
advantages in the wider software market. Microsoft as a company has 
consistently demonstrated the will and ability to twist fair 
business practices to give

[[Page 26201]]

themselves unfair (and sometimes illegal) advantages in almost every 
major category of software. Doing anything less than splitting them 
into independent companies will leave them room to twist the terms 
of the settlement proposal to their advantage in the same way they 
have twisted many other market factors.
    There are rumors that both Sun and Microsoft have ``encouraged'' 
large numbers of people to contribute to the comment process. You 
probably have no way to verify this, so it probably doesn't matter a 
whit, but I want to state for the record that I have no association 
with either company and am submitting this comment solely as a 
result of having read many troubling news items in the past few 
months that compel me to involve myself in one tiny way in the legal 
process.
    Thanks,
    Brian Moore
    1600 S. Joyce St.
    #1702
    Arlington, VA 22202



MTC-00016147

From: Eric Hays
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think that the proposed settlement is a bad idea.
    Eric Hays



MTC-00016148

From: Sullivan, Michael
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greeting's...
    As a knowledgeable and respected administrator of Microsoft 
goods and services, I have seen/experienced first hand some of the 
rather questionable business practices employed by Microsoft over 
the years. Until recently, I have frequently supported and 
recommended Microsoft as a quality product distributed at a 
reasonable price, regardless. Lately though, their Development, 
Licensing and Upgrade policies have thoroughly convinced myself of 
the criminal nature of the tactics and devices used to stifle 
competition, increase revenue, and punish current users for not lock 
stepping directly into the Microsoft doctrine...
    Once a company ``owns'' a market, as Microsoft currently does 
(Isn't it almost 94% of PC software used world wide ?), they have no 
real options for gaining new business/income other than re-tapping 
their current customer base, and eliminating ANY competition. This 
basically means ``Extortion''. No that's not too harsh a word.
    For Instance...
    Business was given a choice on the WindowsXP release... Upgrade 
to our new (Un-Proven, barely released) software now, for a 
significant price...Or Upgrade later at an increased price. Either 
way, Microsoft was going to make billions for the release of 
software which in my mind, and many others, was not worth the price. 
Features vs Upgrade cost were not economically feasible nor 
warranted. Typical ``End-Users'' were sold basically ``Windows 
Dressings'' (Forgive the Pun) complete with built in monitoring 
tools and services which allow Microsoft to collect un-precedented 
amounts of information on it's customer base with no solid 
guarantees on it's usage...(I read the agreement)
    It's become apparent since the findings of wrongdoing by 
Microsoft, that they are trying to lobby a settlement that is not a 
punishment. All that I've heard/read so far would indicate an almost 
favorable reaction by Microsoft, in that goods and services and 
visibility would actually expand to Microsoft's eventual benefit. 
This should not be allowed to happen, and I urgently request strong 
action which will induce Microsoft into changing its ``own'' 
policies regarding the intentional domination of competing 
technologies.
    Just think....94% of the worlds drivers all owning the same car, 
and only one company makes any of the parts....
    Michael J. Sullivan
    IS/ON2/PDE Support
    248-377-7880
    [email protected] mailto:[email protected]>
    Putting Information In Motion...



MTC-00016149

From: Christopher Matthew Smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    The proposed settlement between the Department of Justice and 
the Microsoft Corporation is, by far, letting Microsoft go with a 
slap on the wrist. More drastic action must be taken to help ensure 
that Microsoft cannot dominate the computer software industry in an 
anti-competetive way. Where as many of Microsoft's competetive 
practices are indeed done in legitimate ways (such as hiring 
programmers and other people responsible for making competing 
products away from their employers), other practices are not. 
Because the DoJ has not actively kept Microsoft in check during the 
anti-trust suit, Microsoft has increased their market share of 
personal computers running Microsoft software. Whether major 
business restrictions or other such actions are imposed, Microsoft 
must be stopped before they control the computer software industry 
in an anti-competitive way.
    Christopher M. Smith



MTC-00016150

From: John Seals
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    I just wanted to add my voice to the rising number of complaints 
against the proposed settlement the Department of Justice has 
tentatively reached with the Microsoft Corporation.
    Keeping Microsoft in its current state will slow the pace of 
technology growth, and thereby the US economy if something isn't 
done. I can't understand how it was deemed necessary to break up the 
Phone Company monopoly but not the Operating System Monopoly.
    This settlement will go a long way in smothering the free market 
in the Information Technology sector. Microsoft has demonstrated 
again and again predatory business practices aimed solely at keeping 
their software and operating systems at the top of the sales charts, 
but often at the bottom of the performance charts.
    I strongly ask that this settlement be re-evaluated and that the 
Department of Justice consider splitting up this giant Monopoly and 
letting the free market choose the best product available.
    Sincerely,
    John Seals
    Consultant
    Solution Design Group
    wk: 651-994-7210
    ``If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as 
the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million 
miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone 
inside.''--- Robert X. Cringely



MTC-00016151

From: Paul and Gail Hein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs,
    I feel that the proposed settlement is not well defined. There 
are too many parts of it which can be interpreted in different ways. 
It seems to me that Microsoft can interpret in a pretty broad way. I 
don't think there is very much limitting about the document. I 
request that you reconsider this settlement.
    Paul Hein



MTC-00016152

From: The Langleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly oppose the ``Proposed Final Judgment'' in the 
Microsoft antitrust case. There are many, many things wrong with it 
ranging from poor definitions of technical terms which significantly 
weaken the impact of the remedy, to virtually no specification of 
how the remedies should be enforced, the result of which is that the 
entire remedy is rendered moot and next year we the people will be 
back in court spending hard earned tax dollars to confront 
Microsoft's well funded Legal Team (funded by moneys derived from an 
illegal monopoly). With over twenty years of personal experience 
developing innovative software products, both in California's 
Silicon Valley and on Massachusetts'' Route 128, two of the 
countries most innovative regions, I fear that this Proposed Final 
Judgment will result in the end of an era of software innovation. 
Microsoft's well documented and now legally recognized stifling of 
competition and thereby innovation will spell the demise of one of 
the shining stars of our economy. Too much power has been 
concentrated in this one franchise to detriment of our entire 
nation.
    I will be cosigning the excellent review offered by Dan Kegel at 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html which does an excellent job 
detailing many of the

[[Page 26202]]

weaknesses of the current proposal. Please, I cannot stress enough, 
this Judgment is flawed and the impact of passing it will have a 
monumental result on one of our nation's most valuable treasures, 
our ability to innovate, do not allow this judgment to proceed in 
its current form!
    Sincerely,
    John Langley
    205 South Merrimack Rd.
    Hollis, NH 03049



MTC-00016153

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a software developer and I feel that the currently proposed 
settlement is a VERY BAD IDEA.
    The settlement does nothing to address the issues of Microsoft 
as a Monopolistic power and simply serves to strengthen there market 
position. Please reject the settlement.
    -Aric Stewart
    [email protected]



MTC-00016154

From: Brian Stevens
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: microsoft settlement is wrong
    Dear Sir or Madam:
    The proposed settlement put forth by the Department of Justice 
is not nearly enough to remedy the damage done to the computer/
software industry. Microsoft exists as it is today for no reason 
other than the extensive manipulation it has wreaked on the 
industry. In order to provide an environment where innovation can 
flourish and where users have a choice of software, microsoft must 
be severly penalized. Even as the government's case against 
Microsoft is proceeding, the company thumbs its nose at justice by 
releasing even more software that will further cement their 
stranglehold on the market and is clearly aimed at extending their 
grip to other sectors. Please do what is necessary to stop Microsoft 
from stealing any more of my freedom.
    Sincerely,
    Brian Stevens
    Lebanon, NH 03766
    Brian Stevens
    HB 7560
    7200 Vail Building
    Dartmouth College
    Hanover, NH
    USA



MTC-00016155

From: Jeremy Gebben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit 
those acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. 
That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for 
the American people in general.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Gebben



MTC-00016156

From: Mark Halegua
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    After reading the settlement of the MS vs DOJ case I feel 
compelled to respond. The settlement is way too soft and favors 
Microsoft, essentially rewarding them for anti-competitive behavior. 
It allows MS to control hardware vendors in the same ways as before, 
it allows MS to continue to hold captive users by controlling the 
hardware vendors, and gives them too much control over the committee 
which supposedly oversees their activities.
    MS should have NO people on the committee they suggest or 
desire. All oversight committee members should in fact be selected 
by non-MS (perhaps all should be selected by anti-MS) computer 
industry experts, including the academic, legal, and open source 
community.
    MS must make ALL API information available immediately upon 
creation. MS should not have even one (1) day of advantage on API 
calls. Dessemination of API calls should be through the internet on 
their own web pages (in easy to reach, not hidden or layered areas) 
and on public web pages, i.e., Freshmeat.com, IDG.net, and other 
open news web pages. Further, all industry news (i.e., 
Computerworld, Infoworld, PC Magazine, etc.) outlets and their 
associated internet outlets must also receive this information.
    MS must NOT be allowed ANY time advantage regarding the API 
calls. A mechanism must be set up whereby a user purchasing a system 
with Microsoft Windows Operating Systems may return the Operating 
System to either Microsoft or the hardware vendor and receive, 
within 60 days of said return and request of payment, payment 
equivalent to the payment made to MS for the OS. The EULA currently 
states a user may do this, but no mechanism exists and MS and the 
hardware vendors do NOT make refunds for the OS.
    The situation exists that a computer user wants to use an 
Operating System (OS) not made by Microsoft, but wants a computer 
from a vendor where the computer only ships with a Microsoft OS. The 
user is forced to pay for the OS, even though the user will delete 
the MS OS and install another OS (i.e., Linux, Unix, FreeBSD, etc.). 
The End User License Agreement (EULA) states the user may request a 
refund for the OS if not used, but neither MS nor the hardware 
manufacturers abide by the EULA. Setting up a mechanism where they 
are forced to do so, and abide by the EULA.
    MS must also be disallowed from in ANY way modifying pricing of 
product to different vendors. Pricing must be uniform, as this is a 
method of controlling vendors. The current settlement agreement 
leaves too much leeway in pricing and thereby still allows MS to use 
pricing as a weapon against vendors who may want more controll over 
how they install MS products on their systems.
    There is so much more wrong with the settlement I wonder if the 
DOJ didn't make a backdoor deal with MS for items and issues the 
government doesn't want the public to know about, like government 
backdoor access to the OS for law enforcement and other items. The 
settlement as currently proposed punishes MS for anti-trust 
violations not at all, and Microsoft's behavior over the last 10 
years has harmed the industry and the public. Contrary to their 
claims of innovation, MS innovates not at all, they copy other 
company's innovations, and generally copies them poorly. They have 
corned the desktop OS market (over 90 percent) and the desktop 
office suite market (over 80 percent), they have cornered these 
markets using illegal and anti-trust violation, and the settlement 
does little to correct these issue and nothing to punish MS.
    Mark S. Halegua
    FarSight Data Systems
    Information Technology Consultant



MTC-00016157

From: Saul Farber
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I am writing to express my concern that the settlement between 
Microsoft and the DOJ is not in the public interest. Particulary 
disturbing is the clause which requires Microsoft to open it's APIs 
in exchange for a license ``on reasonable terms.'' What are the 
implications of this clause for the free software movement? There is 
a large ``grassroots'' orginization of computer programmers who 
invest their own time (for NO pay) in order to make powerful 
software available for FREE to businesses like IBM, Sun and Oracle. 
These free software products need to be provided the specifications 
and information to interoperate with Windows and other Microsoft 
products, in order to provide for the possibility of successful free 
software products with Windows.
    Thank you for your time,
    Saul Farber



MTC-00016158

From: [email protected]@inetgw

[[Page 26203]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions. Most important, the proposed settlement does little 
to correct Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions 
that correct or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit 
the future repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes 
against the very foundation of law. If a person or organization is 
able to commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then 
receive as a ``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit 
those acts again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. 
That is not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for 
the American people in general.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Channic
    Mokena, Illinois



MTC-00016159

From: matt(a)mattleonard.com
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Regarding the Proposed Final Judgement (PFJ) in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case, I must say that I find many aspects of it 
disturbing and insufficiently stringent in terms of holding 
Microsoft accountable for illegal practices. To pick just one, not 
requiring Microsoft to pay significant fines for years of ``ill-
gotten'' gains is astounding. When a company is found guilty of 
abusing its monopolistic power to become even more rich and 
powerful, they should be heavily fined. Time and again, monetary 
penalties have been used to good effect to demonstrate to wrong-
doers that their actions will not be brooked and this is an 
excellent time to do just that.
    Thank you,
    Matt Leonard
    Denver, CO
    [email protected]
    http://mattleonard.com
    A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men.
    We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams. --
Willy Wonka



MTC-00016160

From: Mike Courington
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the proposed settlement is a bad idea. It does not 
punish Microsoft in any lasting way that they can't get around 
eventually, whether through ``careful interpretation of the law'', 
intense lobbying, or creative spending. If they get away with this 
now, there will be no stopping them in the future.
    Once again, I think the propsed settlement is a BAD IDEA.
    Mike Courington



MTC-00016161

From: Stefan Gagne
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a citizen of Maryland, I wish to register my complaint. I do 
not approve of the current settlement; it does not place sufficent 
penalty on the shoulders of Microsoft and will allow the monopoly to 
continue to abuse its power in the marketplace.
    -Stefan Gagne
    Boyds, MD



MTC-00016162

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The current Microsoft Settlement proposal is a bad idea. I 
strongly urge the court to not accept this settlement proposal. The 
settlement agreed to between Microsoft the and Federal Goverment is 
a ruse. It amounts to nothing more than a skillfull manipulation of 
the justice system by Microsoft to turn a potential punishment in a 
reward. By providing this so-called billion dollar donation of 
equipment and software (mostly software) to schools, Microsof is 
doing two things:
    1. Ensuring their monopoly continues and even grows by locking 
the educational market, previously a bastion of diversity between 
Apple and Microsoft, onto their products.
    2. Escaping punishment by providing billions of dollars in 
software licenses, a product which has market value, but is of 
absolutely no actual cost to Microsoft.
    Thank you,
    Andrew Scott
    Louisville, KY



MTC-00016163

From: Curtis Simonson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I am writing to tell you of my displeasure for the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement. I feel that the wording is too loose, allowing 
Microsoft to keep practicing it's Monopolistic ways. Please mark me 
down as objecting to this settlement.
    Thanks
    Curtis Simonson
    InterOperability Lab
    Bridge Functions Consortium
    (603) 862-3525



MTC-00016164

From: Jason L. Shiffer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I personally feel that the settlement that you are making with 
Microsoft Corp. is severely lacking. I am a long time computer 
professional and have been appalled by the utter disregard for the 
law that Microsoft has taken when attacking it's competitors.
    I understand that many believe that we should get this behind 
us, that we should hope that by letting Microsoft go this time we 
can stimulate growth. However this would be a mistake. We cannot let 
a tyrant off the hook because it benefits us in the short run. 
Please reconsider the settlement and go after tougher restrictions 
on Microsoft's future actions.
    Thank you,
    Jason L. Shiffer
    1214 Ware St.
    Vienna, VA 22180
    703-242-9624



MTC-00016165

From: Jeremy McMillan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a computer system administrator with a professional 
interest in compatibility issues between computer systems. My name 
is Jeremy McMillan, and I live at 3537 N. Wilton Ave. Apt. #1, 
Chicago, IL 60657. I think that the antitrust violation settlement 
proposals submitted by Microsoft are inadequate, and in some ways 
counterproductive. Overly narrow definitions of ``API'' for 
disclosure will legally entrench Microsoft's current stranglehold on 
software development and the omission of restrictions on hardware 
OEM contract terms leaves Microsoft in more stable monopoly power 
than before the initial antitrust filings.
    Please list me as a cosignor of the Dan Kegel comments entitled 
``Open Letter to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement.''
    Jeremy McMillan [email protected]>
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00016166

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern; pI oppose the proposed Microsoft 
Settlement, as it is currently written. I believe that the proposed 
settlement is weak in both its punitive and preventative content. 
The most serious problem that I see with the proposed settlement is 
that it does not seem to provide any relief for competitive 
operating systems and applications that seek to be (somewhat) 
compatible with Microsoft Windows. Indeed, it appears that Microsoft 
will be able to continue its use of legal and licensing policies to 
erect barriers to free competitors, such as Linux, Samba and WINE.
    I urge you to modify the proposed settlement to include specific 
prohibitions against any Microsoft practices that erect artificial 
barriers to entry for competitive operating systems and applications 
that seek to be compatible with Microsoft Windows.
    These prohibitions should, at the least, bar Microsoft from:
    1) Creating and/or enforcing end user license agreements (EULAs) 
that prohibit

[[Page 26204]]

users from running the licensed software on non-Microsoft operating 
systems and Windows compatibility applications. I think computer 
users in the United States should be allowed to run Microsoft 
Outlook, Internet Explorer or even Excel under Linux and WINE if 
they want.
    2) Prohibiting the use of Microsoft's public API documentation 
by competitors to enhance the Windows compatibility of their 
products. This is needed to support both competition in the office 
productivity software space as well as the operating system space. 
What's the point of providing documentation to developers, if then 
they are not allowed to use the information provided? In closing, I 
hope that my comments have helped convince you that, without 
modification, the proposed settlement with Microsoft does not 
adequately protect the US consumers who have been harmed by the 
company's past anti- competitive actions.
    Thank you.
    Matthew S. Ring
    Software Engineer
    Rochester, NY



MTC-00016167

From: Jason Grider
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a truely bad idea
    Jason Grider
    IS Manager
    Fiskars Home Leisure--Opelika
    [email protected]



MTC-00016168

From: Law Albert-Y17934
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I wish to voice my opinion about the Microsoft (herein referred 
to as MS) settlement. However, a summary of my thoughts would be 
``the USA justice system has no teeth''. I must expound, but I shall 
keep it concise.
    The beginning of this trial saw MS accused of unfair trade 
practices. The middle saw MS guilty of monopolistic practices. At 
this point, one may point to the fact that monopolistic practices 
are illegal. To do so would be to rein down justice from the 
Department of Justice (DOJ). Many companies and involved employees 
found this reassuring. An illegal practice was found to be harmful 
to competition and to US citizens. Justice was going to be done.
    The debate of the possible remedies was understandably long. MS 
is a very large company. Any impact on them might be too sweeping to 
remedy the main problem-- unfair trade practices. The past has shown 
many drastic remedies. AT&T was broken up. IBM was forced to do 
business in a fundamentally different manner. The past showed that 
justice was not only brought upon the small companies. No one 
company was above the law. No one company could be side step the 
remedy and continue with their unfair trade practices. Competing 
companies, involved employees, and the faceless citizen were all 
thought of as the victims. The victims were given justice. Moreover, 
each company survived the remedy regardless of their turmoil. A 
remedy was not a poison pill.
    However, I feel that justice will not be done, the wronged will 
not be righted, and MS will not change in any manner. The current 
proposed remedy is much too light on MS and doesn't even start to 
address the concerns of the competition nor those affected. Indeed, 
the remedy is full of loop holes. Moreover, it does not restrict 
MS's ability to continue its unfair trade practices in the future. 
One can easily expect MS to illegally leverage its way into other 
competing markets with the exact same business strategy. Nothing 
will change, but there's everything to lose.
    I am aware that my opinion is not very forthcoming with facts 
and the such. Though I can be more articulate and supportive in my 
statement, I find that there is enough legal and technical opinions 
from the States who oppose the current proposed remedy. They make 
very good arguments. I sympathises with them. Regardless, my main 
objection to this remedy is that there is no perception of how this 
will stop MS from continuing to act illegally or how this will 
compensate the wronged. Both are quite flimsy at best. I support a 
hefty cash fine on MS in the tune of billions. Similarly, I support 
restricting MS's business actions with a government body who can 
unilaterally impose fines on MS or cancel any and all MS trade 
contracts with any company. Lastly, I support opening up competition 
for offending MS products by fragmenting MS into at least 3 
different and independent entities. These products would include but 
would not be exclusive to: MS Windows 2000, MS Windows XP, MS! !
    Windows CE (aka: Pocket PC), and MS Windows 9x (including MS 
Windows Whistler). These remedies are quite harsh, but I find that 
MS's conduct and attitude in this trial was equally but conversely 
light. Justice must be done. The DOJ must restore confidence in the 
justice department. The wronged must feel righted. US citizens 
cannot be oppressed in such a manner as to stifle innovation and 
competition.
    Albert Law
    Programmer
    Motorola



MTC-00016169

From: bob
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    I feel that the current settlements proposed to remedy the 
Microsoft Anti-trust settlement are not going far enough. What 
essentially is happening is that they are not even receiving a slap 
on the wrist for criminal action.
    For Microsoft to make sugestions to settle the case would not be 
prudent. Microsoft has shown from its past actions that it cannot be 
trusted.
    Microsoft has ZERO accountability in their gurarantee of 
software quality. This would not be as great of an issue if their 
software was not in virtually every home and office desktop. 
Unfortuntately, their stronghold on computers available for us to 
purchase at the local store virtually forces us to buy their 
products. If MS Windows crashes, and am lose irreplacable work worth 
money, can't Microsoft be liable for these damages? If virtually 
everybody drove Ford cars with Firestone tires, and those cars 
crashed at a rate of twice a day, I am sure that Ford and/or 
Firestone would be held accountable. To make matters worse, it seems 
as if a substantial part of their revenue comes from the ``support'' 
of their products. I am not asking for Microsoft to open their 
source code, or anything of the like. None of that will not so us 
any good. Plenty of good software is already written by non-
Microsoft companies and individuals. I am asking that Microsoft be 
watched, or even regulated as any large company/utility is. I am 
asking that there be a Federal Department overseeing single 
companies with more than 50% market share of any single software 
arena. This can range from Operating Systems, to Office Productivity 
suites. If the same company has the greatest market share in more 
than one category, then they should be watched on both fronts by 
separate entities.
    Please ensure that a settlement not only punishes Microsoft for 
their anti-competitive behavior, but also prevents FUTURE anti-
competitive infractions. Microsoft can be seen rearing a bad seed: 
they will continually test their limits with authorities, and if 
their acts go unpunished by those in charge, they will continue to 
act the way the have, only this time they will push their limits 
even more. Please keep in mind, Microsoft did not become #1 because 
of their ``quality software.'' they became #1 by ignorance, 
intimdation, and brute force. America's technological future is at 
stake.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Alvarez
    Software Consultant/Human Factors Engineer
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00016170

From: Patrick Earnest
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
antitrust trial. I feel that the current proposed settlement does 
not fully redress the actions committed by Microsoft in the past, 
nor inhibit their ability to commit similar actions in the future. 
The vast majority of the provisions within the settlement only 
formalize the status quo. Of the remaining provisions, none will 
effectively prohibit Microsoft from abusing its current monopoly 
position in the operating system market. This is especially 
important in view of the seriousness of Microsoft's past 
transgressions.
    Most important, the proposed settlement does nothing to correct 
Microsoft's previous actions. There are no provisions that correct 
or redress their previous abuses. They only prohibit the future 
repetition of those abuses. This, in my opinion, goes against the 
very foundation of law. If a person or organization is able to 
commit illegal acts, benefit from those acts and then receive as a

[[Page 26205]]

``punishment'' instructions that they cannot commit those acts 
again, they have still benefited from their illegal acts. That is 
not justice, not for the victims of their abuses and not for the 
American people in general.
    A better settlement would include one of the following:
    1) Microsoft having to open up all its APIs to anyone who may 
request them, with a severe penalty for nondisclosure.
    2) A breakup of Microsoft
    3) Being forced to give all versions of MS Windows prior to a 
settlement into the public domain.
    4) A fine in the area of $30 billion dollars.
    While the Court's desire that a settlement be reached is well-
intentioned, it is wrong to reach an unjust settlement just for 
settlement's sake. A wrong that is not corrected is compounded.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Earnest
    Chicago, IL



MTC-00016171

From: Steve Holdener
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  9:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    Providing *choice* in operating systems and productivity 
applications (such as Word and Excel) is the only way to truly free 
the public from Microsoft's monopolistic stranglehold. There are 
applications available for Windows as well as other operating 
systems which would suit most users'' needs quite well. 
Unfortunately, Microsoft's market share is so great, many computer 
users feel that sending Word or Excel documents is a ``standard'' 
form of communication. Some projects have attempted to decode the 
secret formats of these files, but none have done so perfectly, and 
Microsoft tends to change them every few releases to ensure that 
this moving target is never hit. As long as these documents remain 
unreadable to other applications, users wishing to communicate with 
others (especially when in a supplier or vendor mode) are forced to 
use Microsoft products. They often, in turn, rely on these same 
mechanism for communicating with others. This effectively creates a 
word processor market, for example, open only to applications which 
can perfectly read and write the Microsoft Word file format. Of 
course, there is only one such application available.
    To provide true freedom of choice for Americans, Microsoft-
software-generated files must conform to an open standard, allowing 
other software to correctly read and write in the same format used 
by the Microsoft products. This is certainly feasible today; the 
recommended format would be XML, which is easily read on any 
computing platform. Therefore, I would recommend an addition to the 
section entitled ``III. Prohibited Conduct'':
    To provide interoperability with non-Microsoft applications, 
Microsoft shall not use proprietary or closed formats for documents 
generated by its word processors, spreadsheets, and presentation 
applications (like PowerPoint). Rather, standard formats, agreed 
upon by an independent standards body, of which Microsoft will be a 
part, shall be used for the persistence or transmission of any of 
these documents.
    Thank you.
    Steven Holdener
    1529 Louisville Ave.
    St. Louis, MO 63139



MTC-00016172

From: Pete Loshin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02  10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: Renata B. Hess
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    This message is my personal comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. Very briefly, I believe this settlement is NOT in the 
public interest, and can only serve to strengthen rather than 
weaken, Microsoft's monopolies.
    Not only will it be ineffective in remedying the harm done by 
Microsoft's business practices in the past, but it will likely 
assist Microsoft in the future as it seeks to increase its market 
share. Microsoft's licensing practices, in particular the way 
hardware vendors are required to bundle Microsoft software with new 
PCs, as well as limited in their practical ability to sell hardware 
unbundled, tend to artificially inflate hardware costs. Purchasers 
of hardware must pay for Microsoft Windows whether they plan to use 
it or not.
    Further, the provisions of the proposed settlement that give 
commercial ventures preference over non-commercial ones is a clear 
threat to Microsoft's most recent--and most threatening--competitor: 
the open source software community.
    The public interest can not be served by allowing any 
corporation to control what software or hardware products I use as 
long as I respect that corporation's intellectual property rights; 
neither is the public interest served by allowing Microsoft to not 
only avoid any negative consequences from its actions but to reward 
it by allowing it to draft its own settlement.
    In large part, I agree with Dan Kegel's assessment and his 
suggestions for improvement, as expressed in his open letter (see 
http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html).
    I am a US citizen, as well as an independent writer covering 
technology and computing. My column on open source software appears 
monthly in Computer Power User (CPU) Magazine.
    submitted respectfully,
    -pl
    Pete Loshin
    41 Brand Street
    Arlington MA 02474
    Pete Loshin [email protected]
    +1 781/646-6318
    www.Internet-Standard.com
    writing about Internet protocols since 1988
